masters on islamist and hindutva thinkers

"BLOOD BROTHERS, SWORN ENEMIES"

A comparative study on the ideas of Maulana Maududi (a Muslim) andM.S. Golwalkar (a Hindu), with particular reference to their views on

the relationship between religion and the state.

M.A. RELIGION STUDIES THESIS

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA2001

STUDENT: David RadfordID: 9810815F

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter 1- The Socio-Historical Contexts for Maududi and Golwalkar

I. Personal ContextA. Maulana Sayyid Abu'l A'la Maududi (1903-1979) - Personal History and

Involvement with the Jama'at-I-IslamiB. Madhav Sadashiv (M.S.) Golwalkar (1906-1973) - Personal History and

Involvement with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

II. Historical and Political ContextsA. British Colonial RuleB. The Khilafat MovementC. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966)

III. Religious ContextA. Confrontation and Accommodation - The struggle of Islam in the majority non

Muslim context of IndiaB. The Rise of Hindu Nationalism in the face of Muslim/British/Christian and the

influence of Orientalism.

IV. The Modem Phenomena of Religious Fundamentalism

Conclusion

1

9

Chapter 2 - The Question of Identity - Who or what is a Muslim/Hindu? 29 .

I. MaududiA. Right Knowledge

1. Tawheed - The Unity of the Godhead2. Hakkimiya - The Exclusive Sovereignty of God

B. Right People ~ Obedience, subservienceC. Right Lives - Who is a true Muslim and what does Islam mean?

II. GolwalkarA. The Problem - 'Our National Malady' - Loss of Living National ConsciousnessB. The Antidote - Restoring National Consciousness - 'Ideal Hindu Manhood'

Conclusion

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

Chapter 3- The Question of Identity - Who are we - the Community,Nation, Nationalism? And who are they - the 'Threatening Others'?

I. Maududi and the idea of NationalismA. Conflict with the Traditionalists and the ModernistsB. Islam is Opposed to the ideas of Nation and Nationalism

II. Golwalkar and the idea of the 'Hindu Nation'A. The 'Nation' defined in terms of Cultural, Racial and Territorial Unity and

Founded on a Series of Exclusions1. The 'Hindu Nation'2. Key ideas that emerge out of these ideas

a. The Nation as 'Divine Mother' (Bharat Mata)b. The Nation as the 'Living God'c. The Nation as 'Inherent Oneness'd. The Nation in opposition to 'Threatening Others'

Conclusion

Chapter 4 - The Question of Secularism - How did Maududi andGolwalkar interact with the idea of secularism and how was thisreflected in their ideas on society?

1. Maududi and SecularismA. A Critique of Western, Secular CivilisationB. Maududi' s Islamic Response

1. God as Creator, Lord and Ruler2. The Sovereignty of God3. The Status of Man4. The idea of deen or the Islamic Holistic Approach to Life

49

70

II. Golwalkar and SecularismA. A critique of Westem SecularismB. Hindu Religion, Culture and History versus 'Secular Ideals'

1. Religion and Culture2. Religion as Dharma3. Chaturvidha Purushartha ~ The Complete Life-concept4. Secularism as understood in the Indian context5. 'Hindu Secular Tolerance' ~ Emotional Integration and Cultural Assimilation6. The Holistic Approach of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

ii


Chapter 5- Religion and the State - What Relationship or InteractionBetween Religion and the State did Maududi and Golwalkar Envisage? 89

I. Maududi - Religion and the StateA. Basic Principles for Maududi' s Political Theory of Islam (Islam and the State)

1. Islam, as Religion, is a Complete system of Life, Universal and Allembracing, therefore the Islamic State must be Universal and Allembracing

2. Power, Politics and JihadB. Foundation Principles for the Islamic State - Tawhid, Rasala and Khilafat

1. Tawhid (The Unity of God)2. Rasala (Prophethood)3. Khilafat (Caliphate or Representation)

C. The Nature and Functions of the Islamic StateD. The Role of Non-Muslims or Zimmis (Dhimmis)

II Golwalkar - Religion and the StateA. The Nation versus the State: Rashtra versus RajB. Hindu Rashtra as an Organic WholeC. The Function of the Hindu State - As it was, so it should beD. Wanted - A Unitary StateE. Politics and Political PowerF. The Ideal Hindu Nation/Society (Rashtra)G. Non-Hindus/Minorities and the StateH. The RSS, Religion and Politics

Conclusion

Final Conclusion

Source References

Bibliography

Appendix: The 8angb Parivar

iii

116

127

130

136

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

Thesis/Project Title:

Candidates name: D 40 I 0 KAQ FO·~fZO=- _

I declare that this thesis/project is the result of my own research, that it does not incorporate\vithout acknowledgment any material submitted for a degree or diploma in any University andthat, it does not contain any materials previously published, written or produced by anotherperson except where due reference is made in the text.

'Blood Brothers - Swom Enemies'

ACKNO'VLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those who have had importantcontributions to this thesis. To Steve Cochrane, who was instrumental in helping me tosee the value of a thesis that compares the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar. ProfessorT.N. Madan (Honorary Professor of Sociology, Institute of Economic Growth, Universityof Delhi) gave of his time and input into the initial stages of the formation of the idea forthe thesis. He helped me to see that this thesis could make a unique contribution, byoutlining the potential differences between the two and helped to provide the basis forwhich I was able to develop my methodology. My supervisor at the University of SouthAustralia, Michael O'Donoghue, guided me through the detailed process of establishingmy thesis and kept me 'on the straight and narrow path' of maintaining my focus a!ld notgetting caught up in unnecessary though interesting tangents. Dr. John Azumah, lecturerat the Union Biblical Seminary on Islamic Studies (Pune, India) gave added advice onissues especially relating to Maududi and his ideas. I am grateful to Dr. Mark Radford fortaking the time to read the thesis, and for his insightful comments that helped me topolish off loose ends. My parents Dr. Anthony and Robin Radford, who were myconstant companions on the journey of learning to write a thesis. There is no doubtthough that my greatest acknowledgment is to my family. Without the encourageluentand support of my wife Wendy, and children, Caleb and Esther, this thesis would nothave been written.


ABSTRACT

In this thesis, 'Blood Brothers, Sworn Enemies' , I have sought to find keys to betterunderstand some of the complexities that make up the nations of Paldstan and India andin particular the more radical or 'fundamentalist' religious movements that have becomeso prominent over the last few decades. Early in the thesis I quote the statement' Ideashave consequences' and elaborate that we must move away from simply focussing onpresent national events that involve these religious movements as if they can be merelyunderstood by themselves or by their immediate social or political contexts. We mustconsider the ideas that initiated the events, fermented them and guided those who seek tolead them. In particular, I have studied the ideas of two of the most prominent thinkerswithin these movements, Maulana Maududi, of the Muslim Jamaat-I-Islami and M.S.Golwalkar, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Though both are now dead, their ideaslive on in the thinking and deeds of others. This thesis explores a comparison of the ideasof these men and their radical/fundamentalist ideologies with a focus on the way theyviewed the relationship between religion and the state. Others have established that sucha comparison between significant individuals, who lived in the same historical timeframe,and in this case the same geographical and political contexts, offers valuable insight intothe situations/nations in which they were directly involved.

In order to understand the topic for this thesis we must understand some related issuesthat directly affect the ideas themselves, and indeed form the backbone to them. Themethodology that I have used has been one where I have considered some of the keyquestions that Maududi and Golwalkar were seeking to answer. Their answers to thesequestions provided the framework for the further development of their ideas relating toreligion and the state. By comparing their ideas we are able to see where they are comingfrom and how they converge and diverge from each other. I seek to show that these twomen actually corne to similar conclusions though from very different specific worldviews, one Muslim, and the other Hindu. These key questions are centred around theissues of identity. Who am I as a Muslim/Hindu? And Who are we as the Muslim/Hinducommunity/nation and how do Vwe relate to others from different cormnunities?Secularism as an ideology played an important part in the development of Maududi' sandGolwalkar's thinking, or at least in their response to it, and this is also considered. Thefinal section on 'religion and the state' brings these questions, answers, and their ideas,together and highlights once again their similarities and differences of view.

Three sets of statements fonn the concluding comments. The first, from Elaine Pagels, isthat ideas have not been enough for religious movements to succeed. They also requireorganisation and power. And power is the ultimate direction in which the ideas ofMaududi and Golwalkar go. They lead to the use, the need for, or influence of, politicalpower reflected in the form of the state. Only when such absolute power is available,overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly, to these religious movements can the ideas ofthese men find their ultimate fruition. Neither have achieved this end, but the questionremains, what if they do?


This leads to the second statement, referred to in the introduction, that 'Ideas haveconsequences'. Just as we must not simply consider 'circumstances' in isolation from theideas that began them, so we must not consider 'ideas' simply in relation to the presentconsequences. They also have future possible ramifications. By understanding these ideaswe may hazard a future guess at what these ideas may look like as they are worked outand adapted by others. The conceivable future certainly could see very stronglyreligiously affiliated state governance that upholds the dominance and supremacy of oneprevailing majority religious community over the other minority religious communities.

The final statement considered is really a series of statements quoted from SamuelHuntington's The Clash ofCivilizations. While not necessarily agreeing to all he says, itis clear that many issues he raises are pertinent to Pakistan and India, both internally andultimately between them bilaterally. They also have great relevance to the ideas Maududiand Golwalkar articulated. Of course the potential 'clash of civilisations', Muslim andHindu, is far more than a 'clash of ideas'. Yet civilisations are largely built on the basisof ideas, of particular world-views. To understand what this clash is, and what potentiallycould happen if certain people and movements spearhead these nations (at the sametime), a knowledge of these ideas is essential. Of course, ultimately, things also rest onthe ability of the new avatars of these ideas to convince a large majority of their fellowreligionists that their definition of religion and of 'self and 'other' identity is not onlycorrect but worth sacrificing everything to achieve.


INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The title 'Blood Brothers, Sworn Enemies' is representative of the two individuals and

their religious communities who are the focus of this thesis. Abul 'Ala Maududi (1903

1979) and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906-1973) were men who lived in a unique time

in Indian (South Asian) history. Both born in the beginning of the twentieth century these

two men came to prominence as thinkers and outspoken communicators for the radical

movements within their respective religious communities, Maududi in respect of Indian

Muslim Fundamentalism and Golwalkar for Hindu Nationalism. The partition of India and

the upheaval it caused provided fertile ground for the ideas of these men to take root, the

consequences of which twenty-first century Pakistan and India are still feeling the effects.

'Blood Brothers' because they came from the same 'Indian stock' - their families, their

blood are rooted in South Asia. And as 'Sworn Enemies' because these men and the ideas

they represented stand at polar opposites to one another religiously speaking - the radical

Muslim and the radical Hindu facing one another, metaphorically, with the sword in one

hand and the trident in the other.

In my thesis I propose to make a comparative study between the ideas of Maududi and

Golwalkar particularly concerning the relationship between religion and the state. A

comparison of these ideas will be beneficial in providing a fuller understanding of these

men and the organisations they helped to develop, and will also give us added insight into

possible future developments within and between these nations.

Max Weber has been credited with the thought that 'ideas have consequences'. In the

midst of the religio-political situations (i.e. consequences) that Pakistan and India find

themselves today it is imperative that we pay attention not only to the present experience

what can be seen, heard and felt- but also to the ideas that have greatly influenced them.

These present experiences include such events as the imposition of Muslim Shari 'ah law,

and the persecution of the Ahmadiya Muslim sect and the Christian communities in

Pakistan; the ongoing tensions over Kashmir; the destruction of the Babri Mosque by

Hindu extremists in Ayodhya, North India; the constant religious communal tensions

between Muslims and Hindus; persecution of Christians by certain Hindu groups; the rise

of the Hindu political Party (Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] in India; the push in certain

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Introduction

quarters to have the Indian constitution changed to reflect Hindu Nationalist ideals; and the

influence that the organisations that Maududi and Golwalkar were intimately involved with

(Jama 'at-I-Islalni [JI] and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS]) have had and are

having on Pakistan and India.

Why Maududi and Golwalkar?

Men like Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnnah, the first Prime Ministers in India

and Pakistan, were very influential in the formation of India and Pakistan as independent

nation states following partition in 1947. Though at odds on the need to divide India, both

were adamant that these new nations were to be secular (i.e. have as little to do with

organised religion as possible) in nature. Nevertheless, neither could escape the realities

that faced them. Instead of a large majority Muslim population with a sizeable minority

community Jinnah's Pakistan became almost completely Muslim (97+0/0).

Maududi and Golwalkar both opposed the Partition of India for interestingly similar

though opposing reasons. Maududi saw united India as a place for the divinely appointed

and rightful Islamic Shari 'ah law to be implemented. Partition was nothing less than a

division of Allah's land. Golwalkar, following in the footsteps of the ideological father of

the Hindu nationalist movement 1, saw the geo-political area of India as one united

'Hindusthan', land of the Hindus, and envisioned a time when all peoples of India would

either recognise their inherent

'Hindu-ness' or be forced to either leave or be subjected to 'second-class citizenship'

(Madan, 1997:223).

While neither Maududi or Golwalkar nor the organisations they represented have come to

absolute power (control of the state) in either of the nations where they have been

strongest, their ideas have given birth and have seen the development of significant social,

cultural, religious and political movements that will not go away, despite considerable

opposition. They continue to affect the nations where they have predominantly existed and

1 V.D.Savarkar- author of the book 'Hindutva - What is a Hindu?' which defined the political, religious andcultural outlook of the Hindu Nationalist movement, and who greatly influenced the founding of the RSSunder Dr. Hedgewar. Golwalkar must necessarily be linked together with Savarkar as Golwalkar carriedforward and further developed the ideas that Savarkar initially introduced. Therefore it will be important toconsider Savarkar and the way he links into together with Golwalkar. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was

2

'Blood Brothers - SWOlTI Enemies' Introduction

have had both a direct and an indirect relationship and influence on those who have

represented political authority as well as the general masses. My focus is therefore on the

more radical approaches that those within the Muslim and Hindu communities have taken.

Why make a direct comparison between two individuals?

Alan Bullock has proven the tremendous benefit in comparing the lives (and the ideas) of

two highly influential men who lived in the same era, and whose influence went far beyond

themselves and their local contexts, namely Hitler and Stalin (1993 - Hitler and Stalin

Parallel Lives). Maududi and Golwalkar likewise have lived in the same historical era (in

terms of time) and their ideas have been highly influentiae. But these men have other

similarities; they lived in the same geographical area and lived through the same historical

circumstances (i.e. British Rule in India and Partition). The ideas and thinking of both were

born out of similar circumstances but with markedly different worldviews. A comparative

study, particularly of the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar, will help us to understand better

the often conflicting challenges that we find in India and Pakistan - challenges which

include issues such as that of secularism, fundamentalism, 'majoritism,3, and the way

religion interfaces with the state.

Why and how are the themes developed within the thesis?

Maududi and Golwalkar were prophetic men of vision. They saw incisively into the

historical circumstances their religious communities and India were facing, identified the

maladies that caused them and then set about communicating a vision of the way things

ought to be. With the decline of British Rule it was time for the rebuilding and renewing of

Indian society - under Muslim supremacy according to Maududi and under Hindu

supremacy according to Golwalkar. This thesis is focussed towards identifying and

comparing what this Muslim and Hindu supremacy looked like, particularly as it relates to

the way Maududi and Golwalkar saw religion interacting with the state.

an organisational man; Golwalkar, his designated successor, was a charismatic ideologue who gave freshimpetus to the RSS as a movement to rejuvenate Hindu society.2The ideas of Maududi in particular were influential far beyond the shores and context of India.3 A term often used in South Asia referring to undue influence of the majority community over minorities.

3


The first chapter deals with the contexts in which Maududi and Golwalkar found

themselves. Ideas do not develop in isolation, they come from somewhere. The context for

Maududi and Golwalkar included such things as their history, colonial rule, calls for

Muslim and Hindu revitalisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the

widespread growth of religious fundamentalism, and of course their own personal

journeys. These form the background out of which their ideas emerged. As thinkers

Maududi and Golwalkar were men who looked at situations (especially within their own

Muslim and Hindu communities) and analysed the problems as they saw them. Inevitably

this raised questions. It was on the basis of the answers to these questions that these men

formulated their thinking on the role of religion and the state. These questions form the

themes that provide the framework for the rest of the thesis. My focus is on 'Religion and

the State', but in order to get there, and in order to properly understand their thinking, we

must work our way backwards, in other words to start at the beginning.

The second and third chapters deal with the questions of identity. Who is a Muslim? Who

is a Hindu? - as individuals and as a community/nation. In answering these questions

Maududi and Golwalkar were able to provide boundaries for clear identification - who was

a true Muslim and a true Hindu, and who was not. The converse was as important because

the solutions to Muslim and Hindu [re] ascendancy involved both a renewal of an

individual's Islamic and Hindu identity (allegiances) and therefore a renewal of their

respective communities, as well as a clear delineation as to who was in (and therefore had

power and authority) and who was out (those who fell into lesser categories). It also

identifies the enemies of Muslim and Hindu ascendancy, internal and external. Jaffrelot

refers to these as those 'Threatening Others' (1999 - Chapter One heading, p11). These

issues go beyond simply revivalism, they ultimately determine the basis for the way

society, and therefore the state, should function. The identity of Muslims and Hindus as a

community leads to the broader issue of nation/nationalism, which is the direction the third

chapter takes. This chapter deals with questions such as: What is a 'nation'? and How

should a nation be defined?

The fourth chapter considers the way Maududi and GolwCllkar responded to the issue of

secularism. The idea of secularism was very much at the core of the ideals that saw India

carved up into the nation states of India and Pakistan. The idea of secularism is

fundamental to the way much of the modem world has developed particularly in relation to

4


the function of nation states. Certainly this was true of the European nations that most

interfaced with South Asia. To understand how Maududi and Golwalkar viewed the

relationship between religion and society/the State, it is essential to deal with how they

interacted with secularism. This is true especially as it relates to the twin ideas of the

rejection of things religious and of the separation of religion within society, and the

compartmentalising or restricting of its influence to certain areas.

The fifth chapter centres specifically on 'Religion and the State'. With the questions of

identity - individual and national considered, with a clearer understanding of how Maududi

and Golwalkar saw secularism and their response to it in the light of their Muslim and

Hindu communities, we are now in a position to give our attention to Maududi's and

Golwalkar's ideas relating to how they saw the relationship behveen religion and the state.

The previous chapters provide the necessary foundation for the issues discussed in this

chapter. This chapter will also consider the specific issue of how religious minorities are

viewed and the role the organisations these men founded and developed in the functioning

of the State.

The conclusion highlights the key issues brought out by the comparison of the ideas of

Maududi and Golwalkar. How do their ideas compare? Where do they converge? Where

do they diverge? What were the elements that formed the basis for these ideas? It raises

some important issues for the future, given that the ideas of these men may well be taken

up by others who will make them their own in the twenty-first century.

Literature Review

The literature available on Maududi and Golwalkar can be divided into three sections.

Literature written about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Hindu nationalism as part

of a modem phenomenon, literature written about these men, their ideas and the

organisations they have closely associated with, and thirdly, the works that Maududi and

Golwalkar wrote themselves. In the first category the most exhaustive work has been the

five volume Fundamentalism Project edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby. The

Fundamentalism Project is a collection of essays written by numerous individuals from a

multi-disciplinary perspective seeking to analyse and understand what is considered by

5


many to be the modem phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. Many of the authors

focus their attention on Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Hindu revivalism and

nationalism in India with obvious references to Maududi and the lama 'at-I-Islami and

Golwalkar and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in India. Others such as Peter van der

Veer, Religious Nationalism - Hindus and Muslims in India and T.N. Madan, Modern

Myths, Locked Minds, consider the rise and influence of fundamentalism in South Asia

specifically. T.B. Hansen and David Ludden focus on the efforts of Hindu Nationalists in

India, while Bruce E. Lawrence, Defenders of God and Youssef M. Choueiri, Islamic

Fundamentalism look at the role, among others, that Maududi and the lamaat had in

worldwide Islamic fundamentalism.

In the second category Sayyed Vali Reza Nasr's two books Maududi and the Making of

Islamic Revivalism and The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution stand out as the most

comprehensive works specifically focused on the life of Maududi and the lama 'at-I-Islami

as an organisation. Ishtiaq Ahmed in his book The Concept of an Islamic State gives

prominence to Maududi as one of the key orchestrators and promoters of the idea and

content of the Islamic State as a concept. With the recently rapid rise and popularity of

Hindu nationalism there has been a flood of books on Golwalkar and the RSS, in particular

Dr. R. Goyal's Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Christophe Jaffrelot's The Hindu

Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925-1990's, The Brotherhood in Saffron - The

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism by Walter K Anderson and Shridhar

D Damle and Political Ideas of MS. Golwalkar by Ritu Kohli. Koenraad Elst has just

produced a two-volume investigation into the charge of fascism against Golwalkar and the

RSS in The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of ((Hindu Fascism" as well as an extrapolation

of the ideological development of Hindu Revivalism in Decolonizing the Hindu Mind.

Of the two men Maududi was the most prolific writer penning a multitude of works (well

over a hundred) mostly published as pamphlets. Of these, the ones most pertinent to this

thesis are Islamic Law and Constitution, The First Principles of the Islamic State, The

Islamic Way ofLife, West Versus Islam, Towards Understanding Islam, Let us Be Muslims,

Towards Understanding Islam, Human Rights in Islam and Four Basic Quranic Terms.

They cover Maududi's detailed treatise and rationale for, and description of, the Islamic

State and his passionate attempts to convince Muslims to wholeheartedly devote

themselves to the Islamic cause and way of life.

6


Golwalkar was a great travelling man visiting and speaking all over India. The works best

associated with his ideas and thinking have been We or our Nationhood Defined, Bunch of

Thoughts and Spotlights. The former was his first and most controversial work and the

latter were compilations of his speeches and writings as he later developed them. Other

literature that he wrote can be found in Integral Approach that was co-authored with

Deendayal Upadhyaya and D.B. Thengadi, and in an number of articles/speeches that he

wrote/gave which are available from the RSS website. V.D. Savarkar's book Hindutva

Who is a Hindu? was a foundational work for the Hindu Nationalist movement. Golwalkar

and any other thinker within this movement will inevitably refer to this book as they

espoused their own thinking and to which, therefore, I will also give some attention.

What has not been written or considered before has been a direct comparison of the ideas

of Maududi and Golwalkar. They have been considered as individuals in their own right or

within the context of their own movements, or as part of a worldwide

fundamentalism/religious nationalism paradigm but not side-by-side. Both sought to give

definition and vision for their religious communities as the authority bearers for society

and as I hope to show, both come to quite similar conclusions but from very different

presuppositions. I believe this different perspective will be a valuable contribution to what

has already been written.

One final book is important to mention, and that is The Clash of Civilizations and the

Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington. While not mentioning Maududi and

Golwalkar by name this book has significant bearing on my thesis. Huntington seeks to

formulate a new paradigm for understanding the changing world in the aftermath of the

demise of the former Soviet Union and the ending of the 'Cold War'. In this new scenario

Huntington believes that the dominant shift in global activity will be the focus on alliances

based on civilisations and not on the basis of a particular political ideology or other uniting

factors. At the same time the centre for global conflicts on both a micro and macro level

will be the clash between competing civilisations. His thesis, especially as it relates to the

ascendant and often aggressive Muslim civilisation [represented by Pakistan and Maududi]

in conflict with the Hindu civilisation [represented by India and Golwalkar] has remarkable

parallels with some of the issues that this thesis raises and to which I will draw some

attention in the final conclusion.

7


Methodology

Introduction

This thesis begins by considering the context that surrounded Maududi and Golwalkar and

their ideas - personally, historically and religiously. Each of the chapters following will

look at the ideas of these men focused towards understanding what they saw as the

relationship of religion and the state. I have seen it as a progressive build-up. In order to

understand the topic for the thesis we must understand some related issues that form the

building blocks to it. I have sought to do this by considering some of the key questions that

Maududi and Golwalkar were seeking to answer. Their answers to these questions

provided the framework for the further development of their ideas relating to religion and

the state.

In each chapter I will look at the question at hand and then in tum review the way Maududi

and Golwalkar sought to answer them. At the end of each chapter these ideas will be

summarised with a view to looking at the way they come together and where they diverge.

My final conclusion will try to bring an overall look at their ideas on the thesis topic and

the way they have compared and contrasted with one another, what has happened to their

ideas and consider where these ideas might lead.

8

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies' Chapter 1

CHAPTER ONE:

THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR

As stated in the introduction it is vital to understand the personal/historicaVpolitical and

religious contexts that surrounded Maududi and Golwalkar if we are to properly

understand their ideas. This chapter seeks to provide the background for the ideas

discussed in the subsequent chapters.

I. PERSONAL CONTEXT

A. Maulana (Mawlana) Sayyid Abu-'. A'ia Maududi (Mawdudi) 1903-1979

Personal History and Involvement with the Jama'at-I-Islami

In his comments on Islamic revivalism world-wide, Nasr makes the point, that to

properly understand the development of this movement it is imperative that we

understand the life histories and intellectual contributions of particular individuals

individuals who have had a significant impact on the movement (Nasr, 1996:3).

One of those significant individuals was Maulana Sayyid Abu-l A'Ia Maududi 1

(hereafter referred to as Maududi). There seems to be little doubt that Maududi had

made one of the most important contributions to Islamic revivalism both in his own

nation of Pakistan as well as in the movement worldwide. Nasr describes this man

and his role in Islamic revivalism as follows:

...Mawlana Sayyid Abu-'l AlIa Mawdudi ...was one of the first Islamic thinkers to developa systematic political reading of Islam and a plan for social action to realize his vision. Hiscreation of a coherent Islamic ideology, articulated in terms of the elaborate organization ofan Islamic State, constitutes the essential breakthrough that led to the rise of contemporaryrevivalism...Mawdudi is without doubt the most influential of contemporary Islamicrevivalistic thinkers. His views have influenced revivalism from Morocco to Malaysia,leaving their mark on thinke::s such as Sayyid Qutb and on events such as the Iranianrevolution of 1978-1979, and have influenced the spread of Islamic revivalism in CentralAsia, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Mawdudi's contribution to the development 'ofIslamic revivalism and its aims, ideals, and language is so significant that it cannot besatisfactorily understood without consideration of his life and thought (Nasr, 1996:4footnote #12)2

Born on September 25th, 1903, In Aurangabad, in what is now the state of

Maharashtra, he was the youngest son of Sayyid Ahmad Hasan. Maududi was

1 For convenience sake I have chosen this transliteration of Maududi's name unless taken from a direct quote.

9


descended from one of the most prominent branches of the Chisti Sufi Order. This

Sufi order has had the most significant impact in terms of the spread of Islam in

Northern India, and remains today the best known of the Sufi orders. The Chisti

pilgrimage site in Ajrner, Rajasthan, is visited today by thousands of people,

Muslim and Hindu alike. Later in life Maududi was to refer to this familial heritage

as a basis for his claim to authority in the spreading of his ideas and thinking (Nasr,

1996: 9). The significance of his mother's family lay in their intimate involvement

with the Moghul rulers whom they served as military generals. 3

Maududi's early education was an Islamic one. Maududi' s father wanted him to

follow a religious vocation, but after his father's death in 1918, Maududi, still a

teenager, turned towards journalism. It was not long before Maududi and his

brother moved to Delhi where he soon became engrossed in politics and the Indian

Independence movement. It was during this period that Maududi pursued his

interest in English modernist thought4. While remaining sceptical of the premises

underlying much of this writing he nevertheless attempted to understand it and

resolve the philosophical differences between tradition and modernity.

Significantly, Nasr points out, 'Mawdudi became particularly interested in

understanding the theoretical basis and practical application of modem scientific

thought in the context of an Islamic worldview'. (Nasr, 1996:15)5

A number of repercussions from the failure of the Khilafat movement (a movement

initiated in India to support the cause for maintaining the Muslim Ottoman caliphate, a

symbol of Islamic political and spiritual unity, after the First World War, considered later

in this chapter), led Maududi to believe that he needed to take some action. Some of these

2 See also Esposito in Banuazizi, 1987:341-342 and Veer, 1998: 63-64. Madan mentions an Islamic scholarin Chicago, Fazlur Rahman, who disputes this claim about Maududi and is in fact antagonistic towards him(see also Madan, 1997: 143).3 Nasr makes the point that those people involved in revivalist thinking during this time were alsothose who had come from important Moghul related families whose fortunes were reversed once theBritish had come to power (1996: 11 see footnote #24 - This certainly was also true of the Hindunationalist thinker V.D.Savarkar although in his case it was his family's position in relation to aHindu Raja, Veer, 1988:2.)4 Some of Maududi's readings on modernity included Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Liebnitz, Kant, Nietzsche,Darwin, Lenin, Marx, Bernard Shaw.5 Maududi' s " ... concern for incorporating mOdelTI scientific ideas in the C01pUS of Islamic thoughtrather than vague attempts at cultural revival of earlier days - which may be more attributed to theconservative elements within Islam associated in India with the Ulama (those Muslim religiousleaders who are educated in Islamic law and capable of issuing opinion on religious matters). Nasr,1996:15

10


repercussions included the subsequent violent communal tensions between the Hindu and

Muslim communities following the demise of the Khilafat movement; the assassination of

Swami Shradhanand ~ leader of the shuddhi movement (an organised campaign to

convince predominantly nominal Muslims who abided by Hindu norms and low caste

converts to Islam to return to Hinduism - its stress on conversion was a source of great

antagonism to Muslims); the increasingly aggressive stand of radical Hindu groups such as

the Hindu Mahasabha and especially the Arya Samaj, on issues such as shuddhi; the

apparent failure of Muslim intellectuals to defend their faith and community adequately;

and the growing sense of despondency among Indian Muslims.6 Professor Madan, in a

personal conversation regarding Maududi (20/11/00, New Delhi), felt that more than any

other issue the events surrounding the Khilafat movement provided the defining moments

for Maududi as far as his sense of divine call and efforts towards the promotion of an

Islamic State. He became convinced that issues relating to Westemisation, secularism, and

the majority Hindu dominance made it impossible for Muslims to live under Hindu rule or

secular governance. He believed that Muslims needed to look towards the formation of an

Islamic State to protect their interests. Action for Maududi meant taking up the pen - the

journalist/scholar within him came to the fore beginning with his apologetic Islam Ka

qanun-I-jang (Islam's Law ofWar)7. Nasr comments:

From this point, Maududi's knowledge of Islamic history, law, theology, philosophy, andmysticism, and his reading of the Indian Muslims' political experiences in the 20th century [and hisreading in more modem subjects] led him to a revivalist position and the assumption of the authorityneeded to articulate it. (1996:26).

Over the next few years Maududi furthered his journalistic vocation editing a number of

newspapers while at the same time pursuing his Arabic and religious studies (dars ~

inizami). He eventually received his ijazahs (certificate to teach religious science)

becoming a Deobandi8 'alim (singular of lulama). Maududi however, was not keen on

publicising his Deobandi training or his ties with the Ulama. Nasr suggests that this may

have been because he did not want to alienate the western educated classes (1996: 18).

Madan points out that Maududi' s main issue with the Deobandi ulama was that they

6 There were other pressing issues also. Some of these included the missionary activity of the Ahmadi sect;the fall of Sharif Hussein of Mecca to the Wahabi movement in Saudi of'Abdul ~Aziz ibn Saud in 1924; andthe resulting upheaval in Mecca and Medina for which Hyderabad, as a declining Muslim stronghold inIndia, was also closely tied (Minault, 1999:23-31).7 A rational exposition of the Islamic doctrine ofjihad (holy war) which had come under attack as anexample of Islam's violent nature.8 Deoband was the location of one of the main Islamic institutions in India - for a brief discussion on the twomain Muslim Institutions at Aligarh and Deoband, and their differences see Madan, 1997: 133-138; also GailMinault, 1999 )

11


supported the movement for independence from the British through the vehicle of the

Indian National Congress (1997:139). No doubt, by not acting as an 'alim Maududi kept

himself from being 'tagged' as an outdated conservative religious leader. But it also had

another more personal outcome for himself. Maududi wanted to bridge the gap between

traditional and modem education among Muslims believing that it was important to get the

best from both streams. But this was also a double-edged sword. By refusing to act as an

'aUm Maududi also withheld his acceptance of the ijma' (consensus) of the Ulama who

had preceded him (Nasr, 1996:18) thereby leaving room for him to have the freedom to

interpret the Islamic scriptures and traditions in ways that he felt were better suited for

modem times. 9

I do not have the prerogative to belong to the class of the Ulema. I am a man of the middle cadre,who has imbibed something of both systems of education, the new and the old; and has gathered myknowledge by traversing both paths. By virtue of my inner light, I conclude that neither the oldschool not the new is totally in the right. (Nasr, 1996: 19)

It was while Maududi was in Hyderabad that he experienced a renewal of his faith. In the

midst of his writing and activism he found himself struggling with his faith. But as a result

of his own reading of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (The Traditions) and his education at the

Fatipuri mosque seminary, his personal conversion to Islam took place. Nasr comments, as

if to underscore the context of Maududi's journey of faith, that this reconversion was

divorced from the traditional orthodoxy and from the institutions of the ulama and the sufis

which, for Maududi, became rituals and impediments toward realising his objectives

(1996:29, see also quote in footnote #13).

Maududi's developing revivalist solutions and the effects of his reconversion to Islam only

began to find expression in political tenns in 1937, after a visit to Delhi, where he

witnessed at first hand Hindu political ascendancy and the secularisation that seemed to

have taken place among Muslims. This led Maududi to take a stance that became even

more anti-Congress, anti-nationalist and anti-traditional Muslim leadership (such as the

Jam 'iat-I- 'Ulama-I Hind - his fanner employers).

9 Maududi did have many things in conunon with the Deobandi. He shared many of their concernsespecially the intrusion of colonial culture into the lives of Muslims. Like the Deobandis, Maududi sought toemulate "the practice of an authentic text or an idealized historical period", to exalt religious law and teach itat a popular level, to disparage popular religious rites and customs such as the celebrations of Sufi festivals,and generally to create a normative order in which Muslims could live by the teachings of their faithindependent of the ruling order. '(Nasr, 1996: 18)

12


In 1937 Maududi moved from Hyderabad to eastern Punjab where he took up a position as

overseer of a project begun by the poet Muhammad Iqbal and under the patronage of

Niyaz'Ali. This project came to be called Daru'l Islam as Maududi's intention was that

India would once again come under the 'House of Islam' with Pathankot as its revivalist

centre. This was Maududi' s opportunity to train a cadre of dedicated men who would

eventually work in the political arena without losing their strong religious loyalties, or, as

Nasr puts it, 'to provide the Muslim community of India with its leaders and to serve as the

foundation for a genuine religious movement of political deliverance (1996:39).' His

outspoken views eventually led to both a split with the Muslim League as well as with

Daru 'I Islam's patron, who had envisioned more of an educational institution than a 'hot

bed' for fermenting religious and political revolution. Maududi moved Daru'l Islam to

Lahore, in the process declaring 'that separation of religion from politics had no place in

Islam'(Nasr, 1996:39).

Now that Maududi had his institution and 'nerve centre' for training and spreading his

Islamic revivalism, the next step was to form the organisational apparatus that would

spearhead this tlrrust. In August 1941, Maududi established the Jama 'at-I Is/ami (JI

literally, 'the Islamic Association') in Lahore. Although the JI started off with more socio

cultural and religious aspirations to renew Islam from within ('there could be no Islamic

state without an Islamic revolution' - Madan, 1997: 139) the turbulent events of Partition

and the resulting formation of a separate nation for the Muslims of India spurred Maududi

on to pursue more direct political involvement. This was inevitable given Maududi's

passion to include all of life under the mantle of Islam - indeed the formation of an Islamic

State was an ideal goal. During this time Maududi also took steps to see that his writings

were translated into Arabic for circulation throughout the Muslim World.

Though initially opposed to the idea of partition (Madan, 1997:139-140) Maududi soon

overcame his initial qualms, migrated to Pakistan, and actively promoted the establishment

of an Islamic State and constitution for this new Muslim nation. 'Indeed', Madan quotes

Maududi, 'if a secular and Godless, instead of Islamic, constitution was to be introduced

and if the Criminal Procedure Code had to be enforced instead of the Islamic Shari' a what

was the sense in all this struggle for a separate Muslim homeland?' He [Maududi]

pronounced Western secular democracy to be the very antithesis of Islam' (1997: 140, see

also p139).

13


In the years since Partition, Maududi and the 11 have had a chequered history of religious

and political involvement in the affairs of Pakistan (from the forming of the constitutions

of Pakistan, to seeking political status, to supporting the war with East Pakistan, now

Bangladesh, to spearheading the attack on the Ahmadiya sect, to the implementation of

Muslim Shariah law). They were at times in favour, and at times out of favour, with the

ruling authorities, but they were always at the forefront of espousing the cause of Islam.

Since Maududi's death in 1979, the 11 have continued this involvement in Pakistan to the

present time.

Although Maududi may not have been a leader close to the heart of the people, and

although the 11 may have never done well as far as the popular vote was concerned,

Maududi's influence and the activity of the 11 have been of such a level that the ruling

establishment, and other opposition political parties and religious groups have had to

redefine their agendas and include 'Islamic ideals' in their public presentations (regardless

of their own personal views). Indeed they have been instrumental in pushing Pakistan

closer and closer to the realisation of a 'truly' Islamic state - the ultimate goal for all of

Maududi's thinking.

B. Madhav Sadashiv (M.S.) Golwalkar (1906-1973) - Personal History and

involvement with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak 8angh (R88)

Golwalkar was born on the 19th February 1906, into a Karhada Brahmin family, at Ramtek,

near Nagpur, Maharashtra. Guided by his schoolteacher father, Golwalkar pursued an

education focused on the sciences. Interestingly, during his early childhood and

adolescence Golwalkar appeared to show little interest in Hindu nationalism or politics.

However, Golwalkar developed a keen interest in the study of spiritual issues. While in his

teens, and under the oversight of the Superintendent of Schools in Nagpur, Golwalkar

began to read extensively the Vedas and other Hindu religious writings. Although he

considered devoting his life to these Golwalkar could not bring himself to oppose his

father's wishes for the direction of his future. Nevertheless, Golwalkar retained an ascetic

bent into his adult life. Some of his correspondence gives us an indication of this. Writing

to two different friends Golwalkar comments:

14


At this juncture I want to reiterate that I do not have even the least intention to tune my life to themundane material comforts of life. I have the earnest desire to tune the strings of my life in such amanner that I attain the state of self-negation to the purest extent. In this endeavour one has toendure the inevitable stresses and strains. During this effort it won't be a matter of dissent ordiscomfort. If one's life gets disoriented with the normal worldliness one has always to see that hisstate of consciousness remains tuned with the divine music of the spiritual plane of life... .the spiritual path is slippery as well as embedded with thorns; if I succeed, I will reach thepinnacle. But if I slip, I will be shattered to pieces by falling into the deep abyss. And there is thealternative to this sure but dangerous path. Some triumphant Shukdeva defeats Rambha and attainsGodhood whereas Vishvamitra traversing the same path, gets defeated at the hands of Menaka anddeviates. Incidentally, the phenomena of the world cannot be tied to a set of rules. But to say thatbecause one is disheartened, his decision to adopt the worldly life is justified, is nothing butcowardice. For the eternal bliss one has to get ready to face the adversities and miseries inevitablyand be determined to triumph over them. There is no other way less risky than this. (Kohli, 1993:23)

Golwalkar met Dr. Hedgewar (the founder of the RSS) in 1929, during one of the latter's

visits to Benares Hindu University (BHU) where he was teaching. But it was not unti11931,

through one of his students, that Golwalkar ultimately joined the RSS. He continued to

teach until 1933 when he resigned his position at BHU and returned to Nagpur. At

Hedgewar's invitation Golwalkar began to work full-time at the Nagpur Headquarters of

the RSS while continuing his studies in law. After completing his studies in 1935,

Golwalkar managed to combine practising law with his responsibilities with the RSS.

Eventually he was also asked to manage the RSS Officer's Training Camp (which he

continued to do until 1939) based in Nagpur. This was an important position and an

indication of Golwalkar' s growing standing in the eyes of Hedgewar, as this camp was the

principal training programme for the RSS leadership.

In 1937, without informing either his parents or Hedgewar, Golwalkar left for the

Saragachi Ashram of Ramakrishna Math in the Himalayas, to be a sannyasi. A few months

later he moved on to the Ramakrislma Mission in Bengal to become a disciple of Swami

Akhandand (himself a disciple of Swami Vivekananda). In time he was initiated with

'Mantra Deeksha' by the Swami and gave himself to the life of a sadhu (Hindu holy man)

under the former's guidance.

In was in the midst of the dilemma of whether to pursue wholeheartedly the 'this-worldly'

activity of RSS work or the 'other-worldly' spiritual pursuits he had so desired since

childhood that Golwalkar ultimately- opted for the latter by, as it were, 'fleeing to it in the

middle of the night'. However, this pursuit of an isolated ascetic life in Bengal was brought

to a sudden halt with the death of the Swami barely a few months after Golwalkar had

joined the Ashram. During this traumatic experience Golwalkar returned to Nagpur where

15


Hedgewar persuaded him not to return to isolated asceticism but rather to direct his life and

energy once again for the RSS cause.

Not long after this, in 1938, Golwalkar prepared the first systematic statement of the RSS

ideology entitled We or Our Nationhood Defined lO• This remains until today the definitive

work on RSS thinking. Written in a very aggressive tone, this book is now very difficult to

locate. A more temperate collection of Golwalkar' s works was published entitled Bunch of

Thoughts, which is still widely available. In 1940, on the eve of his death, Dr. Hedgewar

passed on the mantle of leadership of the RSS to Golwalkar.

Golwalkar gave himself completely to the growth and development of the RSS nation

wide. He made a practice of touring the entire country twice every year - something he

continued to do for all the 33 years he was the sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader of the

RSS). Hedgewar had founded the RSS with a desire to see it remain a primarily 'cultural'

organisation that was to keep a distance from political ac6vities. Golwalkar continued that

'policy' for some time although as the years went by it came to be increasingly brought

into question how strictly this distance remained in practice. Following the assassination of

Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, Golwalkar, as leader of the RSS, was arrested and a ban placed

on the organisation by the government. After his release a year later, there appeared to be a

marked increase in the RSS's involvement in both national and political arenas, despite the

fact that officially, and as part of the agreement reached between the government and

Golwalkar on his release, and the lifting of the ban on the RSS, no RSS worker was to have

direct involvement in politics. 'Despite Golwalkar's disclaimers', Anderson and Damle

claim, 'the RSS was a different organisation. Its leaders were now prepared for it to take on

a more activist orientation" (1987:55). At this time there was much discussion within the

Congress Party as to whether RSS members should be able to join as members. Indeed the

records show that there was some direct correspondence between the Congre<ss Home

Minister Patel and various RSS leaders about this (Ibid, 1987:52). Ultimately, Congress

rejected any direct relationship making allowances for RSS members to join only if they

resigned their membership with the RSS. The upshot of these events was that the RSS

became far more committed to being involved in politics than Golwalkar had originally

planned. A further and equally significant outcome was the decision to set up affiliated

10 Later Golwalkar was to acknowledge that this was largely an abridgement of an essay on nationalismentitled 'Rashtra Mirnansa' by Baharao Savarkar - V.D. Savarkar's brother - Kohli, 1993:3; Andersen andDarnle, 1987:43.

16


organisations around the RSS to become actively involved in all kinds of aspects of Indian

society (Ibid, 1987:55-56 11; Jaffrelot, 1999: 187-89).

Golwalkar remained an influential man in Indian national affairs. He actively involved the

RSS in issues such as the war with Pakistan, and the conflict with China, and maintained a

close association with Lal Bahadur Shastri, who became Prime Minister after lawaharlal

Nehru. Golwalkar died in 1973, after suffering illness for several years. Golwalkar had

achieved much. When he took over the RSS there were about 50 shakhas (the small group

meetings where RSS members regularly gather) and 100,000 swayamsevaks (RSS

members). At the time of his death there were over 10,000 shakhas with a total

membership of about one million. Furthermore the RSS had been instrumental in

establishing nearly 50 'front' organisations involved in all aspects of Indian society

political, social, religious, education, labour, women etc. The RSS had also begun to move

out internationally where people could become involved in the RSS movement through

their branch organisations such as the Bharatiya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa

Hindu Parishad (Goyal, 2000:96-97).

Today the influence of the RSS has penetrated into the highest echelons of power in the

nation where its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is the dominant

political party in the ruling coalition, and whose former members, hold the key positions in

Government (Atal Behan Vajpayee, Prime Minister, A.K. Advani - Home Minister,

Muruli Manohar Joshi - Human Resource Development, to name but a few).

II. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS

A. British Colonial Rule

The most significant historical situation was the rise, influence and fall of colonialism

around the world and in particular British colonialism. The British had risen to enonnous

political and economic power ultimately controlling significant areas including parts of

Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, their peoples, and the economic wealth that

resided within them. Some of these colonies were fairly homogeneous in nature, others

11 For an extensive treatment of these RSS affiliates referred to as the 'Sangh Parivar' see chapter fOUf of

17


such as that of India (pre-Partition - including what is now Pakistan, India and Bangladesh)

were a much more complicated conglomerate of large numbers of cultures, languages,

peoples, kingdoms and religious sects.

Prior to British rule12 India had been largely, but not completely, governed by succeeding

Muslim dynasties. From the 12th century to the late 18th century various Muslim rulers

managed to hold power to be the major political authority on the Indian subcontinent. The

British supplanted and defeated Muslim rule (the last Mughal emperor lasting until 1798),

eventually absorbing the remaining minor kingdoms that had managed to keep some

degree of independence from Muslim governance. Gaining power was one thing.

Maintaining that control over such a diverse place as India was another. Through a

complicated system of 'divide and rule' the British managed to unite India politically while

seeking to placate the various competing forces that they had brought under their sway.

One of the significant steps taken by the British in this regard was the implementation of a

system of separate representation for Muslims in legislatures. Effectively this meant that

Muslims could stand for legislative office, and be elected by Muslim electorates alone l3.

This encouraged a growing polarisation between the Hindu and Muslim communities. In

this light Rao comments, that, as a result of these separate electorates, rivalries intensified

"between Hindus and Muslims, and created disruption; barriers were created where none

existed previously, and the Muslim community was further isolated. The whole fabric of

political and social life became vitiated and religion took on political overtones" (Rao, in

Shupe and Hadden, 1988: 181).

A further step taken by the British was the undertaking of a census at the end of the 19th

century (see Frykenberg, 1993:239). Ostensibly for the better running of the administration

of British India it ultimately was seen as an opportunity by various sections of the Muslim

and Hindu communities to enhance their power base with the British. The more numbers

one had the more one could bargain for special privileges etc. Muslim leaders sought to

make sure that fringe Muslims (those mainly converted from Hindu backgrounds but who

still maintained strong cultural links with their Hindu roots) were clearly in the Muslim

fold, while Hindu leaders made concerted efforts to see that all Hindu sects, regardless of

Anderson and Damle, 1987.12The British ruled significant parts of India from the mid_18th century.13 Before 1909 Muslims found it difficult to be elected to legislative councils in provinces in which they werenot in a majority.

18


their diversity of belief and practice, considered themselves, in the eyes of the law, to be

Hindus.

India remained the jewel in the British 'imperial crown' through to the begilUling of the

20th century. However the world changed dramatically following the First World War (and

certainly after the Second World War). Colonial rule, of whatever sort - British, French,

German, Turkish - was heading for decline and the resulting call for the independence of

nations held under their sway, led to the sudden emergence of independent nation states

from Africa to Asia. After the First World War and under the leadership of Mahatma

Gandhi, Indian nationalists increased their efforts to push the British towards swaraj or

Home Rule for the Indian sub-continent. Mahatma Gandhi realised that for this to take

place it was essential that Muslims and Hindus find bridges to cross the increasing divide

between the two communities. The Khilafat movement offered such an opportunity to

Gandhi. Although it was primarily a Muslim issue Gandhi saw it as an opportunity for

Hindus to support a Muslim community concern and so forge greater levels of unity for the

cause against British colonial rule.

B. The Khilafat Movement

Essentially the goal of the Khilafat movement was to pressure the British government to

keep intact the Islamic caliphate based in Turkey - the Sultan wielded both kingly

(political) and religious (spiritual) authority for the Muslim world. The Ottoman Turks had

allied themselves with the Germans during the First World War and so lost out both in

terms of their religious (for Muslims) and secular (as representing a strong Muslim

political power) authority in the world. Both the Allied powers and Arab separatists in the

Middle East were keen on ending the political and spiritual 'domination' that the Turks had

enjoyed for centuries and were preparing to carve up the Turkish Empire as war

reparations and effectively strip the Ottoman caliphate of any real power or position. The

Muslim community in India sought to mobilise support from within India to prevent this

happening. Gail Minault, in her book, The Khilafat Movement (1999), discussed the fact

that the Khilafat movement did manage to foster some degree of support from non-Muslim

groups, such as the Indian Congress Party and Mahatma Gandhi in particular, but this was

more because of anti British sentiment than anything else. Its failure (it was the Turkish

leader Attaturk who abolished the Caliphate in 1924) eventually led to the polarisation of

19

'Blood Brothers ~Sworn Enemies' Chapter 1

radical elements in both religious communities with an increasing marginalised moderate

middle as far as the Muslim community was concemed. 14

Maududi had become very involved with the Indian independence movement based

primarily on anti-British sentiment rather than a sense of communal or religious (i.e. anti

Hindu) feeling. But after the collapse of the Khilafat movement in 1924 following the

abolition of the caliphate in favour of a secular national state in Turkey, Maududi became

antagonistic towards the idea of nationalism and Westemisation. He concluded that the

demise of the caliphate was a result of scheming of westemised Turkish nationalists from

one side and the betrayal of Islam by Arab nationalists on the other (who, in collusion with

the Europeans, sought independence from the authority of the Turkish Ottoman caliphate).

Nasr states that Maududi's writings of that time clearly show that he had become

'convinced that nationalism would never protect the interests of Islam because of its

secular nature' (1996:20).

But the fall-out of the failure of the Khilafat movement was far greater. Mahatma Gandhi

had mobilized the Congress Party, including large numbers of its non-Muslim followers

(mostly Hindus) to support the Muslim community in India in the Khilafat cause. In its

aftermath Maududi took an increasingly opposing stance towards the Indian National

Congress and Indian nationalism. He viewed the Indian nationalist movement and the

Indian National Congress as something, which increasingly had developed a Hindu identity

and did not represent the Muslim community. Maududi felt that democracy would only

work for Muslims where Indian Muslims were a majority otherwise they would remain

dependent, to their detriment, on the whims of an antagonistic and far larger Hindu

majority. He began to look beyond the Indian National Congress and other representatives

of the Muslim community, such as the Muslim League, to the revival of Islam and its

institutions in developing a 'political strategy for safeguarding Muslim interests' (Nasr,

1996:20).

While Maududi became deeply involved in the above-mentioned 'nationalistic events'

Golwalkar was busily furthering his education. In 1926 Golwalkar went on to study his

14 An important aspect of what the Khilafat movement did achieve was a greater sense of 'communalconsciousness'. In Minault's words, 'The national alliance disintegrated, but Muslim community selfconsciousness, with or without the Khilafat to symbolize it, had become a factor in Indian politics. All futureattempts to cement an Indian national alliance had to take that feeling of Muslim consciousness intoaccount ... ' (1999:212). Muslims began to see themselves as having a distinct and viable identity.

20


,,".".' "

Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in Benares Hindu University (BHU),

Varanasi. In so doing Golwalkar came under the influence of the founder of the BHU,

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was a recognised Hindu nationalist leader in India

and one who encouraged Golwalkar to work for the Hindu nationalist cause. Following the

completion of his Master of Science degree Golwalkar was asked to join the teaching staff

of BHU as a professor of Zoology. It was during this time that the honorific title 'Guruji',

was bestowed on Golwalkar by his students. This was no doubt a result of the combination

of his 'holy man' looks and teacher status as well as his spiritualistic inclinations.

Although Golwalkar himself was yet to become heavily involved in the Hindu nationalist

movement in India another man, who was to have a great impact on the life and thinking of

both Golwalkar and Dr. Hedgewar, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

[RSS], was making his own significant contribution. That man was Vinayak Damodar

Savarkar (1883-1966).

c. Vinayak Damodar (V.D.) Savarkar -1883-1966

So important is Savarkar to this thesis and to the Hindu Nationalist movement as a whole

in India that a brief introduction is necessary. In 1923 Savarkar published a book entitled,

Hindutva ~ Who is a Hindu? This little book became, in many ways, the defining

work/thinking regarding Hindu Nationalism in India. Savarkar coined the term Hindutva

that also became the catch-cry for the Hindu nationalist movement in India, in all its varied

forms. Savarkar had an important influence on Dr. Hedgewarl5 who not long afterwards

founded the RSS (1925), and on Golwalkar, who was later to write his own manifesto (We

or our Nationhood Defined - 1939).

The comments on Savarkar on the inside jacket of one of the most recognised biographies

describes him thus:

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, reverentially known as Swatantryaveer (freedom fighter) was one ofthe greatest patriots and revolutionaries in modem India. His determined struggle against the Britishrulers and his sacrifice in the wake of this struggle is a glorious chapter in the history of India.Besides, Savarkar was an outstanding writer-historian, poet, playwright, and also a rationalist andsocial refonner. (Keer, 1988 edition)

Savarkar believed that there needed to be a new definition for the term 'Hindu'. He was

convinced that the term must be far more comprehensive than simply a description of the

15 Anderson and Damle, 1987:33; Keer, 1988:17021


religious or spiritual dimensions of those that came within the Hindu fold. It should

encompass the whole of what makes up the Hindu community (see also Savarkar, 1989-6th

Ed: pI 02ff) , and thus he coined the term Hindutva to express this.

...A Hindu, therefore, to sum up the conclusions arrived at, is he who looks upon the land thatextends from Sindu to Sindu-from the Indus to the Seas, - as the land of his forefathers LetHinduism concern itself with the salvation of life after death, the concept of God, and the universe.Let individuals be free to form opinions about the trio. The whole universe from one end to the otheris the real book of religion. But so far as the materialistic and secular concept is concerned theHindus are a nation bound by common culture, a common history, a common language, a commoncountry, and a common religion... (quoted in Keer, 1988:228)

- his Fatherland (Pitribhu), who inherits the blood of that race whose first discernable source couldbe traced to the Vedic Saptasindhus and which on its onward march, assimilating much that wasincorporated and ennobling much that was assimilated, has come to be known as the Hindu people,who has inherited and claims as his own the culture of that race as expressed chiefly in theircommon classical language Sanskrit and represented by a common history, a common literature, art,architecture, law, jurisprudence, rites, rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, fairs and festivals; andwho above all, addresses this land, this Sindusthan as his Holyland (Punyabhu), as the land of hisprophets and seers, of his godmen and gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage. These are theessentials of Hindutva-a common nation (Rashtra), a common race (Jati) and a common civilzation(Sanskriti). All these essentials can be summed up by stating in brief that he is a Hindu to whomSindhusthan is not only Pitribhu but also Punyabhu. For the first two essentials of Hindutva - nationand Jati - are clearly denoted and cormoted by the word Pitrubhu while the third essential ofSanskriti is pre-eminently implied by the word Punyabhu, as it is precisely Sanskriti includingsanskaras i.e. rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, that makes a land a Holyland ...(Savarkar, 1989: 115-116).

Following the collapse of the Khilafat movement Hindu nationalists made greater efforts to

push forward their pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim agenda. Savarkar's Hindutva was published

barely a year after this occurred. Savarkar's emphasis was on defining the Hindu

community in terms of land, culture and language but with a significant addition, that the

person who calls himself or herself a Hindu should be one who holds the nation of India as

both their 'Fatherland' and 'Holyland' - where one's patriotism and spiritual roots are

rooted in the nation of India. As Maududi took offense at what he saw as Hindu hegemony

in the Indian National Congress so Savarkar and his fellow radical Hindu nationalists took

offense at the way they believed Gandhi capitulated and bent over backwards to pander to

the Muslim community, and this at the expense and detriment of the Hindu community.

His was a call for a virile, militant Hindu response to both Gandhi and the Indian National

Congress and to the Muslim community. Precipitated by recent events such as the Khilafat

movement but not solely based on them, Savarkar sought to promote the cause for the

Hindu community to take up the reins of natural, historical, cultural and political control of

India.

22

'Blood Brothers ~Swom Enemies'

III. RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

Chapter 1

A. Confrontation and Accommodation - The struggle of Islam in the majority non

Muslim context of India

Islam has been intimately involved in the nation of India for nearly 1300 years. In his essay

'From Orthodoxy to Fundamentalism' T.N. Madan (1997 Chapter Four) outlines the

historical background of the religio-political relationship that Muslims encountered on

entering the Indian context. In this essay Madan explains how the early Muslim invaders

into India faced the struggle of how to establish a Muslim state among a majority local

population that were considered infidels. Rather than enforcing Islam16 on the local people

it was generally decided to seek accommodation with the Hindu community (at times even

going as far as to consider the Hindu community as part of 'the protected class' or zimmis,

which was actually reserved for those considered 'People of the Book' - Jews and

Christians), in return for acceptance of Muslim rule. It was considered that it was best to

'compromise on the part of both antagonistic communities; it was a compromise between

religious orthodoxy and political expediency' (Madan, 1997: 111). It also set the precedent

for the subordination of the religious authority of Islam to the secular authority or power of

the state. However, this was not a settled issue.

The next thousand years of Muslim rule in the India Sub-continent was characterised by

alternating and conflicting forces within the Muslim community that either sought to

compromise and regard with toleration the Hindu community (e.g. Muhammad bin Qasim

- AD 712; lalal ud-din Akbar - who ruled fromI556-1605), or that advocated a strict

enforcement of Islamic rule (e.g. Mahmud, :King of Gazni - AD 1000; Aurangzeb - who

ruled from 1658-1707). Those who fell into the latter category, particularly those who saw

themselves as guardians of orthodoxy (i.e. the ulama), engaged in a battle to reform and

revive both Muslim secular rulers, who saw themselves as above the religious custodians,

and the general Muslim populace who seemed to have remained bound to the customs and

traditions of the Hindu community from whom they had converted. They tended to have

the view that the primary role of the king (secular power) was to eradicate false beliefs

(kufr) and enforce sharia (Islamic Law).

16 This is not to say that forced conversions, killing of Hindus and the destruction of temples did not takeplace. These things did happen. The point here is that there was a general sense of political expediency thatnecessitated a compromise on any kind of thorough Islamisation of the majority Hindu population.

23


Shah Wali-Ullah (1703-1762) continued this line proclaiming the need to revitalize

Muslim rule and the Muslim community. His message of purification included a call for a

more 'rational and broad-minded interpretation of the fundamentals of Islamic belief,

thought and practice' (Madan, 1997:129) through the use of itjihad (independent

judgement on an independent basis) including the re-establishment of the religious state.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (1786-1831), in the face of the overthrow of Muslim rule by the

British, claimed that India was no longer part of dar ul-Islam (the House of Islam) but was

now dar ul-harb (the 'land or house of war') and that the only valid responses to such an

imperfect state on the part of Muslims was either migration (hijrat) or holy war (jihad). He

also advocated the purification of the lifestyles of Muslims across all levels of society and

the realization of the ideal [Islamic] state. He chose the latter response when he led an

unsuccessful movement injihad.

Following the collapse of the 'so-called Mutiny of 1857' a succession of reformers sought

to influence the Muslim community. Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98) encouraged a

modernist approach advocating a turn to western rationalism, science and education as a

basis for reform, and eventually founding the now famous Aligarh Muslim University

(1874). Others led by a group of more traditional ulama under Muhammad Qasim

Nanotawi, founded the Deoband seminary (1867) near Delhi and stressed the need for

orthodoxy in learning and experience, rejecting the modernist approach. Later Nanotawi

helped start a political organisation called the Jamiyyat-ul-Ulama-I-Hind (the party of the

Ulama of India) to push forward their ideas in the political arena.

Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938) and Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) were twentieth century

leaders who distrusted the modernists but at the same time were not happy with the

Deobandis. They felt these religious ulema tended to place their opinions and

interpretations over that of the original text. While both could be referred to as revivalists

and promoted pan-Islamism they ultimately parted in their ideas. Azad advocated a

pluralist nationalist approach while Iqbal pursued the ideas of Islamic universalism and

promoted the case for a separate cultural space for Indian Muslims (which eventually led to

the demand for Pakistan).

24


It was in this environment that Abu-l A'la Maududi entered the picture. Once editor of the

official publication of the Jamiyyat-ul-Ulamai-Hind Maududi later became disenchanted

with his former employers over their support for Independence under the auspices of the

Indian National Congress. He likewise opposed the modernists who sided with the British

against the nationalists and who later demanded a separate homeland for the Muslim

community. Maududi rejected both of these responses, and instead 'envisaged', in Madan's

words, 'a future for Indian, and later Pakistani, Muslirns in which they would be co-sharers

of Islamic destiny on a global scale: in his own words, "a rational nationality of believers"

constituting a "world community of Islam'" (in Madan, 1997:143).

B. The Rise of Hindu Nationalism in the face of Muslim/British/Christian enemies

and the influence of Orientalism.

We can trace the roots of Hindu nationalism in India to the beghming of the nineteenth

century and particularly to developments that took place in Bengal, Maharashtra and the

Punjab. A number of factors contributed to this. Madan (1997:203-204) mentions three in

particular; a growing awareness of the cultural and religious heritage of the West among

Indian intellectuals of Bengal and Western India; the lifting of the ban by the British

government in 1813, on proselytization by Christian missionaries; and the influence of

Orientalism. In the first case the ideas of Rationalism and the Enlightenment helped to

foster a renewed intellectual movement among Indians. In the second, the often harsh and

highly critical stance taken by some allied to the Christian cause towards the Hindu

religion and Hindu practices generated great resentment by many in the Hindu community

towards Christian missions17. And thirdly, those (primarily Europeans) who promoted the

ideas of Orientalism (claiming the idea of a Golden Age of Indian Culture)18 spread their

thinking to India. Initially through the translation of Sanskrit classics these Orientalists

helped to foster a growing sense of Hindu cultural pride especially among intellectuals

who in tum embarked 'upon programmes of religious and social reconstruction' (Ibid,

p204).

17 This is not to say that all Cluistians or Christian missionaries vehemently attacked Hinduism. Christianmissionaries were also at the forefront of movements to reform practices that later Hindu reformers agreedneeded changing such as William Carey in Bengal and sati (the practice of widows committing suicide byjumping into the flames of their dead husband's funeral fire), and Amy Carmichael, with the selling of younggirls into temple prostitution, in South India. No doubt these activities also brought the missionaries intoconflict with other Hindu elements.18 For further reading on the subject of Orientalism and its impact on Hindu Nationalism see Peter Van deVeer, 1998:18-24, 133-152; Madan, 1997:204; Frykenberg, 1993:238.

25


The nineteenth century saw the growing rise of Hindu nationalism - from Rammohun Roy

and the Brahmo Samaj (1828), who sought to eradicate erroneous religious beliefs and

degenerate social practices among Hindus (e.g. sati); to the Vaishnavite revival of

devotional Hinduism and Vivekananda's revivalist and social service orientated Hindu

vision; to Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay who sought to combine nationalist thought with

religious sentiments; to Dayananda Saraswati and the Arya Samaj (1875) who promoted

the scriptural authority of the Vedas and the need to initiate reconversion rites for those

who had embraced other faiths. Sri Aurobindo Ghose advocated the idea that the nation

was a living embodiment of the divine mother emphasising the deeply spiritual roots of the

Hindu nation. In the early twentieth century two approaches emerged in the Hindu

nationalist movement. On the one hand Gokhale promoted an approach that advocated a

constitutional and gradual change towards achieving their ends. On the other, men such as

Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Madan Mohan Malaviya

pushed fOlWard a 'militant Hindu nationalist discourse'. These men were instrumental in

the founding of the Hindu Mahasabha (1915), a political party dedicated to protect and

promote Hindu interests. In the midst of this newfound Hindu assertiveness V.D. Savarkar

(who later became the President of the Hindu Mahasabha) wrote Hindutva - Who is a

Hindu? (1923) and within two years (1925) Dr. K.B. Hedgewar had established the

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ostensibly to defend Hindu people and the Hindu

nation. This was the setting in which Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar entered after taking over

the leadership of the RSS following Dr.Hedgewar's death in 1940. Continuing on from

Savarkar and Hedgewar, Golwalkar worked towards the protection of Hindu culture

defining the nation in exclusively Hindu terms and producing the ideological treatise on

RSS ideology - We or our Nationhood Defined (1939) (Madan, 1997: Chapter 7; see also

Hansen, 1999, Chapter 2).

IV. THE MODERN PHENOMENON OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM

A word is needed here on the subject of religious fundamentalism. The twentieth century

has witnessed the emergence of a large number and variety of radical religious movements

that have crossed all major religions (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism)

and spanned the globe geographically. Martin Marty and Scott Appleby's monumental

Fundamentalism Project is one of many works that have tried to analyse and describe this

26

'Blood Brothers ~Swom Enemies' Chapter 1

phenomenon. Although, as Madan points out in the Muslim context, fundamentalism may

merely be the modem (i.e. mostly twentieth century) version of a historical process of

reform and revival that dates back hundreds of years (Madan, 1997:Chapter Four), it is

valid to say that it is a recent phenomenon that has been precipitated by factors such as

post-Enlightenment modernity, colonialism and the resultant cultural impact of the West

on the rest of the world.

Some characteristics that mark this movement include: 1. A predominantly modem (post

enlightenment) phenomenon; 2. Identification of 'Enemies within and without';

3. Exclusivist/ Absolutist - uncompromising; 4. Scripture or 'Fundamentals' as authority;

5. Selectively traditional and selectively modern; 6. No division of sacred and secular;

7. Institution Building - of organisations and structures to influence all of society; 8.

Desire for power; 9. Charismatic male leadership; 10. Passionate Believing and Missionary

Zeal (Radford, 1999a: 5_8 19).

There can be no doubt that Maududi and Golwalkar, their ideas and the organisations that

they were involved with, are intimately associated with this phenomenon and include most

if not all of the above characteristics in one form or another.

CONCLUSION

Processes that included the contexts and environments that surrounded them molded both

Golwalkar and Maududi and their ideas. British colonial rule, the events of the early

twentieth century such as the Khilafat and Independence movements and their respective

community (Muslim and Hindu) histories all played a part in this process.

Since the early Muslim incursions into Indian territory Muslims have had to deal with the

issues of what it means to hold political authority and maintain religious orthodoxy in the

face of a majority non-Muslim, non- 'People of the Book' populace. This struggle between

governance and the advocacy of an Islamic state, and the 'confrontation' and on-going

influence of the Hindu kafr community led to great tensions resulting in a series of reform

and revivalistic movements within the Muslim community. British authority supplanting

19 See also Marty and Appleby, 1991 :ix-x; 814-842.27


the Muslim ruling dynasties left a further scar. Some resolved these issues by embracing

the British (i.e. western) way of life and thinking, some sought refuge in traditional

orthodoxy, while others such as Maududi sought a more radical approach advocating both

political and religious renewal towards an Islamic state.

The Hindu community has had to respond to the conflicting 'confrontation and

accommodation' approaches taken by various Muslim rulers over the last thousand years

or so. The more recent ascendancy of the British to political authority in India added a

completely new dimension. British rule was not only non-Islamic but it also introduced

political, cultural and educational ways and ideas that were very different from their own.

The interaction with these new ways and ideas gave an opportunity for some to bring

change in the traditions and ways of the Hindu community. Some sought reform. Some

sought revival and renewal of Hindu religious experience. Others believed it was finally

time to strengthen Hindu community and identity in the face of continued foreign

invasions and influence. Golwalkar inherited the latter approach and proceeded to advocate

a renewal of Hindu ways, ideas and identity in the lives of all Hindu people, with the intent

of transforming India into a robust nation dominated by Hindu culture over and against all

foreign intrusions whether it be Muslim or British rule; Christian, Islamic or western

culture/religion/ways.

28

"Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies' Chapter 2

CHAPTER TWO

THE QIJESTION OF IDENTITY - WHO OR WHAT IS A MUSLIM/HINDU?

Having established the context for Maududi and Golwalkar and the background to their ideas,

this chapter looks at their ideas relating to the question of identity, especially as they define

self-identity and the renewal of individuals within their respective Muslim and Hindu

communities. This is the foundation on which they develop ana expand their ideas relating to

society and the state, and the reason why it is necessary to consider them in this initial stage of

the thesis. The next chapter will continue this idea of identity but with a greater emphasis on

group or community identity. The question addressed here is - Who or what is a

Muslim/Hindu? And if the transformation of society was their objective, how did Maududi

and Golwalkar envisage this transformation happening in their particular religious/commlUlity

contexts, and what were the underlying principles on which they based their ideas?

Both Maududi and Golwalkar were like prophetic voices to their respective communities.

They spoke to their communities with a view to revitalising, renewing, regenerating and

restoring them to their rightful place as strong, vibrant religious, cultural and political societies

patterned according to correct religio/cultural ideals. However expansive their particular

visions may have been, both these men were clear that the total transformation of society that

they envisaged was not going to happen in a moment of time or through the effort of a few

individuals or by a sudden upheaval or overnight revolution. Maududi and Golwalkar both

recognised that for this revitalisation or strengthening of society to take place they needed to

first see a transformation internally (from within). Individuals in society must be

changed/transformed/renewed and conformed to the 'ideal or model' Muslim or Hindu.

These individuals, they believed, if once joined together would in time become a larger and

larger group. As others are also transformed, a critical mass would build up to a point where

they would logically influence a total societal transformation. In this case the formula looks

something like this: Ixlxlxl 1 + time = change. When people's lives are changed from within,

and they come to places of influence, they will be legitimate community leaders. Why?

29

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chapter 2

Because they will bring about change that reflects the ideals espoused by those claiming to

represent their communities and it will be something that is lived out in spirit (internalised) as

well as in practice (externalised). This kind of change is seen as permanent or lasting as

opposed to sudden change that has the danger of being short-lived and temporary. The vision

for what this change looks like harkened back to times in the 'glorious' (hoary) past when

Muslims (on the part of Maududi) and Hindus (on the part of Golwalkar) were dominant and

strong both politically and religiously.

Maududi and the Individual

In describing Maududi's plan for society, Madan says that he argued 'that there could be no

Islamic state without an Islamic revolution' (1997: 140). Revolution was not to be a violent

upheaval externally in society but an internal change in the lives of Muslims in society.

Charles Adams points out that Maududi's goal was the 'restructuring of Indian society in an

Islamic pattern... [The best way to transform a society] is by the creation of a small, informed,

dedicated and disciplined group who might capture social and political leadership. It was a

requirement, therefore, that his group should be thoroughly Islamic both in ideas and conduct,

and to this end he built a program of instruction and training. He expressed the ideal at which

he aimed as the creation of a salih jama 'at, a righteous group, a saving element, or a holy

minority, which would leaven the whole lump of society.' (Adams, 1966:375)

Golwalkar and the Individual

'The transformation of man is of supreme importance', comments Anderson and Damle on

this idea, 'for such a change is, in the RSS belief system [i.e. according to Golwalkar], the

necessary prerequisite for revitalizing society and for sustaining it' (1987:74). Golwalkar

himself says, 'National Oneness cannot be achieved through elections or political propaganda.

Political techniques - even political power -for that matter - can hardly infuse a spirit of

devotion, heroism, character, amity, or sacrifice in the people. In fact, without having the

grassroots of a well-knit national life, the political parties degenerate into mutual hostility and

ruin the national fabric' (Golwalkar, 2000a). 'The RSS', adds Jaffrelot, 'set itself up to reform

I I use the multiplication sign (x) rather than the addition sign (+) because as movements develop they growsynergistically rather than by simple addition.

30


Hindu society by following a form of organicism based on sacrifice of the individual. Its

ambition was therefore to penetrate the whole of society through its network of shakhas. It

took the form of a long-term [italics mine] project. .. ' (1999:77)

An interesting contrast here, is that, whereas Maududi seemed to focus on setting up an

organisation of 'commando-like' dedicated elite workers who would work towards saving

Muslim society [over society as a whole]; Golwalkar (at least outwardly) did not claim to be

building the Sangh (a personal term for the RSS family) as an organisation separate or distinct

from society, but as a vehicle for moulding the whole of society, within society, into an

organised entity (Golwalkar, 1996:399; also Golwalkar, 200Gb). Nevertheless, in practice, the

RSS has remained a very close-knit organisation with a clear hierarchy of leadership and

strictly defined membership. And while many of its members may also have 'normal'

vocations in society [the key managers in the RSS are 'professional' in the sense that this is

their sole vocation], they playa distinctive organising and influencing role in society as their

own unique entity.

I. MAUDUDI

Maududi certainly developed his ideas over time. While it is clear that there does seem to have

been a transition from an apologist to reformer to political activist in his life, the ideas

explained below represent the consistent underlying precepts which formed the foundations

for his ideas on society in general such as politics and economics.

Maududi approached this idea of the transformation of society from several directions:

1. Clarifying 'the twin and interconnected' Quranic concepts of the Unity of God

(tawheed) and Divine Sovereignty (haldmiyya).

2. The appropriate response that people should have to that understanding - individually

and communally.

3. A preoccupation with identifying what is true or pure Islam, and who is a true Muslim,

and who is not, and the necessary challenge to be in the former category. This follows

a basic premise that once people are aware of the right knowledge (or truth) then they

will be able to be right people and live right lives.

31


A. Right Knowledge

1. Tawheed - The Unity of the Godhead

Chapter 2

Fundamentally Maududi means by this the fact that there is only One God in the lUliverse and

that there are no other rivals for that place. Quoting the first line of the shahada or confession

of faith for Muslims, La ilaha illa 'iltah (There is no god but Allah), Maududi explains that

'Only that being can be our God who is the Master, Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer, who

listens to our prayers and grants them, and who is worthy of our worship and obedience'

(1997:72). God (Allah) alone has this place.

In a highly descriptive essay Maududi explains what this means:

Among the fundamentals of Islam, the most important is belief in One God, - not just the conviction thatHe exists or that He is One - but that He alone is Creator, Master, Ruler, and Administrator of all thatexists. The universe exists because God wills it to exist, it functions because God wills it to function,and God provides the sustenance and the energy which everything of the universe requires for itsexistence and growth. All the attributes of Sovereignty reside in God alone, and no one else has a sharein them in the slightest degree. He alone possesses all the attributes of Divinity, and no other than Godpossesses any of the attributes. He views the whole universe in an instantaneous single glance. He hasdirect knowledge of the Universe, and all that is in the universe. He knows not only the present but itspast and its future as well. The omnipresence and omniscience is the attribute of God alone and no other.There was no 'before' Him and there is no 'after' Him. He has been there always - eternal and abiding.All else is transient. He alone is eternally living and present. He is no one's progeny. Whatever exists,besides His self, is His own creation, and no other can identify himself in any manner with the Lord ofthe universe, or claim to be His son or daughter. He is man's single Deity. To associate anyone in Hisworship is a great sin and is an act of infidelity. (1996:5)

The opposite to the concept of tawheed is the idea of shirk (associating something or someone

else with God - i.e. polytheism). Maududi denounces shirk in all forms and comments that

humankind's response must be one of 'acknowledgement of the overlordship of the one God

in all fields of existence... ' (1986:168) - man is to worship Him alone.

Because Allah alone is God then it follows that everyone/thing else is subservient to Him. To

worship or follow anyone/thing else other than Allah is shirk and the person who does so faces

the consequences. Therefore, humankind must turn aside from all false gods and lUlfeservedly

worship Allah alone.

32


Verily I have abandoned the creed on a people who believe not in Allah and who are disbelievers inHereafter. And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It never was for us toattribute aught a partner to Allah. This is the bounty of Allah unto us and unto mankind; but most give notthanks. 0 my fellow prisoners! Are diverse lords better, or Allah, the One, the Subdure? Those whom yeworship beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers. Allah hath revealed nosanction for them. The Authority rests with Allah alone, Who hath commanded you that ye obey none save

Him. This is the right religion, but most men know it not. (reference to the Quran 12:37-40, where Joseph isspeaking - 1986:167)

2. Hakkimiya - The Exclusive Sovereignty of God

'God has sovereignty over the entire life of man,' Maududi maintains. 'The Quranic concept

of the sovereignty of God is quite simple. God is the Creator of the Universe. He is the

Sustainer and Ruler. It is His will that prevails in the cosmos all around. As all creation is His,

His command should also be established and obeyed in man's society. He is the real Sovereign

and His will should reign supreme' (1986: 166). Paralleling his use of the first line of the

shahada in terms of the Oneness of God Maududi further interprets this in terms of God's

Sovereignty to mean that 'There is none other to be obeyed but God' (Adams, 1966:381).

Allah demands exclusive worship and exclusive obedience!

In order to emphasise his point Maududi exegetes the following Quranic passages:

Verily, your Lord is Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He theThrone. He covereth the night with the day, which is the haste to follow it, and hath made the sun andthe moon and the stars subservient by His command. Verily His is all the creation and His is theCommand (the Law). Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the worlds' (Qur'an - 7:54) and 'He unto Whombelongeth the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He hath taken unto Himself no son nor hath Heany partner in the Sovereignty. He hath created everything and hath meted out for it a measure. (25:2).

Maududi explained that God is not merely Creator of the Universe; He is also its Ruler and

Governor (Qur'an 7:54 - istawa 'alaI 'arsh - 'Mounted on the Throne'). Having created the

Universe God has not simply walked away, remained passive or 'gone to sleep' it is He who

continues to sustain and control it. 'All authority and power [have always, continues, will

continue to] rest with Him' and the future of all He created, likewise, is dependent on Him

(1986: 169). He further points out that God is also Commander and Ruler (lahu al-khalq waal

Amr - 'Verily His the creation and His is the command'). As the actual and complete Ruler

God exercises real control over His kingdom. His Will and His Law reign supreme

(1986: 169).

33


The Arabic word Mulk, Maududi continued, employed in Qur 'an 25:2 conveys the meaning of

supremacy, sovereignty and kingship. Because of this, Maududi, goes on, the Qur 'an gives to

Allah alone the title and position of 'the Governor, King and Ruler of the universe and no one

else shares even a thread of His authority' (1986: 171). His point is that Allah, as the only God

(Deity), can be this Sovereign, only God can exercise all power and authority. Therefore it is

His Commands and Law that we must obey and none other. "To acknowledge this authority of

Allah is the kernel ofthe Islamic concept ofSovereignty (ibid, p171- Italics mine)."

B. Right People (obedience, subservience)

The belief, or underlying worldview that Maududi based both his call to personal revival (of

faith) and the foundation for the social/political/moral system that he put forward, is this very

idea, that because God is the exclusive Sovereign Lord and Master of the universe He

demands our (individually and collectively) total allegiance - in other words that we must

'surrender all rights on overlordship, legislation and exercising of authority over

others ... '(1986: 136).

According to Maududi the repeated use of the political terms for Allah 'Kingship, Lord and

Sovereign' clearly explain to us the relationship between God with humankind and His other

creation. These terms indicate to us what our appropriate response should be

acknowledgement and total obedience to God's authority.

The logical conclusion for Maududi from all of this is that there is no argument as to who has

this rightful claim for humankind's Ilah2 (worship) and Rabb3 (obedience), and who has the

right to demand that he should be 'served, obeyed and worshipped' - it is Allah alone: 'The

question at issue was not the dominion over the sun, moon and the universe but that of the

2Maududi points out that the Arabic word Uah refers to the object of that which is worshipped. Therefore therelationship between humankind and God is that of 'the worshipper' and 'the worshipped'. People are to offer'ibadat (worship) to God and to live as His servant ('abd). This worship or 'ibadat does not simply refer tovarious rituals petfonned or prayers spoken but of one whose life is characterised by 'continuous service andunremitting obedience as that of a slave in relation to his lord' (1986: 128).3 The literal Arabic meaning for this word, according to Maududi, is 'one who nourishes and sustains andregulates and petfects' (1986: 129). It is in the very nature ofman, he claims, that the one who does these thingsfor us has the greater claim on our allegiance, the word rabb therefore is also used in the sense of master orowner. This sense of rabb, meaning master, owner or Lord, is the more orthodox understanding of the meaning ofthis word.

34


allegiance of the people, not that who should be regarded as controlling the forces of nature,

but that who should have the right to claim the obedience ofmen. ' (1986:131)

With this as Maududi's introduction to the relationship between God and humankind he then

focuses on defining what is Islam and who is a true Muslim while at the same time contrasting

the same with the person who is not a Muslim. It is important to remember as we discuss these

ideas that the primary target audience for Maududi were those who considered themselves

within the 'Muslim fold' or ummah, not those from the non-Muslim communities. Although

Maududi was committed to the spread and influence of Islam over non-Muslims, his main

point of issue was that, if the Muslim community could be renewed and re-established in their

faith the later would happen naturally in due course. Therefore his prophetic voice was

primarily directed towards the 'unbelievers among the believers' .

c. Right Lives (Path) - Who is a true Muslim and what does Islam Mean?

Maududi states that a person does not become a Muslim by virtue of his/her birth: whether

they were born into a family who claim to be Muslims or whether they happened to be born in

a political nation that gives them a 'Muslim' tag, whether their race happens to be one

associated with Islam or because they bear a Muslim name - but rather 'he is a Muslim

because he follows Islam' (1997:48). For Maududi it is a definite individual choice to

willingly acknowledge and submit oneself to the authority of Allah. Likewise an individual

can cease to be a Muslim by choosing to refuse to do the above and find themselves expelled

from the Muslim community. In Maududi' swords, ' ... it is not something automatically

inherited from your parents, which remains yours for life, irrespective of your attitudes and

behaviour. It a is a gift which you must continually strive to deserve if you want to retain it; if

you are indifferent to it, it may be taken away from you, God forbid.' (1997:49).

Accepting Islam does not mean either that whoever simply makes a profession that they claim

to be a Muslim is a true Muslim. Uttering a few Arabic phrases (such as the shahada)4 does

not make one a Muslim if the person uttering them has no idea what the phrases mean.

Accepting Islam is a conscious and deliberate acceptance of the teachings which come through

4 Contrary to the more traditional teaching.35


the Prophet Muhammad (as revealed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah) and then the living out of

what that means. For Maududi the meaning was essential for true conversion or in his words,

the first essential prerequisite is knowledge. In one of his addresses he explains it as follows:

...no man becomes truly a Muslim without knowing the meaning of Islam, because he becomes aMuslim not through birth but through knowledge. Unless you come to know the basic and necessaryteachings of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, how can you believe in him, have faith inhim, and how can you act according to what he taught? And if you do not have faith in him, lrnowinglyand consciously, as fully as you can, how can you become true Muslims? (1997:49-50)

Of course the second prerequisite follows and that is that the person puts that knowledge into

practice. The person who lacks this knowledge or fails to put it into practice is as good as a

kafir, the Islamic tenn Maududi uses to identify those who are not true Muslims. Literally it

means one who does not accept God's guidance and is ungrateful to Him (i.e. forget what you

owe to God. - 1997:47, 50). Because a kafir does not understand what the right relationship

between God and humankind is, and because he /she does not know what the will of God is,

they cannot then follow the right path. If one who is called or is known as a Muslim also lacks

this understanding (and is ignorant) and therefore fails to live according to God's will,

Maududi asked the question whether they should contillue to be called a Muslim rather than a

kafir!

It should be remembered that Maududi's challenge is to revitalise Muslim society. To do so

one must root out ignorance, unbelief and hypocrisy from individuals in the community, and

therefore the community as a whole, and to redirect them to true belief and living. Maududi

placed great emphasis on the need to teach the Muslim community the right way of living. The

less knowledge people had the less likely they would be able to believe correctly and live

rightly. This actually brings up a larger issue to which I had briefly alluded in chapter one and

refers back to the context in which Maududi found himself.

The Muslim masses were largely made up of low caste Hindu converts who maintained a kind

of syncretistic Muslim faith after conversion - retaining many Hindu/animistic

practises/beliefs while outwardly maintaining a Muslim identity. Some writers claim that

revivalists like Maududi represented the controlling Muslim elite who sought to maintain their

privileged position (albeit an orthodox one) in Muslim society. They did this by enforcing the

majority to be like them (e.g. Singh, 2000: 17). This would firstly, enable the revivalists and

their supporters, with their superior knowledge of orthodoxy, to maintain their leadership

36


position. And secondly, by purifying the 'mixed-up' masses that claimed some kind of

Muslim identity, these revivalists would ensure greater numbers for their side in the effort to

influence the British authorities. That this was at least a serious issue becomes evident when

we realise that at this time of Maududi's life (late 1930s to early 1940s) the call for

independence (swaraj) from the British was at its zenith (see Madan, 1997:chapter four; see

also Minault, 1999).

Islam, says Maududi, also means 'submission and obedience to God' (1997:65). Utilising

telTIlS such as 'entrusting yourselves completely', 'relinquishing all claims to independence'

'surrendering yourselves' (ibid, p65) before the sovereignty of God, Maududi pushes the claim

of God to every area of a person's life. Only God's authority must be listened to and obeyed

and that authority has precedence over every other fonn of authority whether it be an

individual's opinion/reason, their family or cultural customs, the ways of other

peoples/religions or of particular human leaders. A Muslim is one who renounces all other

authority in favour of God's authority. While this view may be heard from other Muslim

religious leaders, the point which sets Maududi apart, and to which this thesis is directed, is

the way Maududi included in these ideas, not merely the authority of God over personal

matters (inheritance, divorce etc.) but also a detailed blueprint of the way the authority of God

should be worked out in the affairs of the state (Maududi, 1997: 148). It begins with the

acceptance of God as Lord in every area of life. It leads to the recognition that if it is true in

the personal realm it must also be true in the societal and political realms as well. Maududi

sought to interpret the Qur'an and the traditions on these areas and then to passionately

articulate his thoughts about them.

Maududi's preoccupation with identifying those who were in the 'true Muslim' fold and those

who were not (i.e. ones who commit kafr or who were kafirs) is seen in the fact that he gives

at least 5-6 different kinds of lists for clarifying where people actually stood before God.

These include: 1. True Muslims v. kafirs (Ibid:49-94); 2.True Muslims v. Partial Muslims

(ibid:114-118); 3. Four levels of Disobedience (1986:175); 4. Four classifications of Men

(1996b:29); 5. True and False Muslims (1992:223); and 6.True Islam v. Legal Islam

(1997: 112-114). These classifications indicated the status of a person graded on a scale from

total degradation on the one hand to ideal 'True Muslimhood' on the other. The first

37


classification I have already touched upon above. In the second Maududi claims the partial

Muslim is the one who professes to be a Muslim but who then confines Islam only to a part of

their lives.

Their relations with their businesses, their lives, and children, families, societies - will all to a greatextent be unaffected by Islam based on secular considerations. As landlords, traders, rulers, soldiers,professional people - in all spheres they will behave as if they are autonomous having no connectionwith their positions as Muslims. When such people establish cultural, educational or political norms andinstitutions, these have nothing to do with Islam, even thought they seem Islamic' [italics mine](1997:114).

In contrast true Muslims are:

... those who completely merge their personalities and existences into Islam. All their roles they havebecome subordinate to the one role of being Muslims. They live as Muslims when they live as fathers,sons, husbands or wives, businessmen, landlords, labourers and employers. Their feelings, their desires,their ideologies, their thoughts, and opinions, their likes and dislikes, all are shaped by Islam. Allah'sguidance holds complete sway over their hearts and minds, their eyes and ears, their bellies, their sexualdesires, their hands and their feet, their bodies and their souls. Neither their loves nor their hatreds, areformed independently of Islamic criteria. Whether they fight or make friends, it is purely for the sake ofIslam. If they give anything to anybody, it is because Islam requires it to be given. If they withhold fromanybody, it is because Islam wants it to be withheld.

And this attitude of theirs is not limited to personal lives; their public lives, their societies are also basedentirely on Islam. Their collectivity exists for Islam alone; their collective behaviour is governed by theprecepts of Islam alone. (ibid, p115)

The Sovereignty of God demands obedience to Allah's Will (Law) that affects every area of a

person's life. A true Muslim is one who conforms to this and actively seeks to see this happen

in both personal and public arenas. A partial Muslim is one who claims the name only but

wishes to allow other authorities (influences - e.g. secular values) govern how they behave in

most areas of their life.

The third list classifies the various kinds of disobedience (therefore they are false Muslims)

that Muslims fall into:

1. Those who called themselves Muslims but maintained beliefs/customs (idolatrous and

polytheistic) that were more closely related to their culturaVfamily traditions than to the

Qur 'an and the Sunnah.

2. Those who called themselves Muslims but were more interested in following the

customs/ideas and ways of other civilisations and cultures (especially western, secular) and

limited Islam to only certain aspects of their lives.

3. Those who were religiously Muslim but whose lives were not wholly devoted to God.

4. Those Muslims who claimed no religious faith at all. (!986:175)

38


The fourth list, a classification of four different kinds of Muslims, lists in descending order of

merit:

1. Those who have a firm faith and follow the way of God with complete and fervent

devotion.

2. Those who have faith and belief in God, His Law, the Day of Judgement but whose faith

is not deep and weak so that they are not fully submitted to God. They deserve some

punishment but are not directly revolting against God so still remain Muslims.

3. Those who possess no faith at all. They refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of God and

are rebels. Even though their conduct may not be bad and are not directly involved in

corruption and violence, their good deeds will be of no value.

4. Those who possess neither faith nor good deeds. The worst of the lot! (1996b:29)

The fifth list defines a true Muslim as one who has faith and deeds. They don't just 'talk the

talk but walk the walk'! However, false Muslims are those who:

1. Stand for 'freedom' of opinion to live and act. Their authority for living is whatever they

think or feel is best and religion has not part in their life.

2. Those who profess some religion but in reality follow their own opinions. Their lives are

influenced more by other considerations and in actuality make religion conform to their

views rather than their views conform to true religion.

3. Those who simply allow themselves to blindly follow their forefathers (cultural ways) or

their contemporaries (modem western influenced thinkers) (1992:223).

More significant perhaps is Maududi' s division between 'Legal' and True' Islam (1997: 113

114) in his sixth list. Legal Islam is that form of Islam that outwardly conforms to what the

letter of the Law demands. Verbal affirmation and outward compliance to those essential signs

that follow that affirmation (e.g. Belief in Allah, the Messenger, the Qur 'an, the Hereafter) are

seen as enough proof of your Islamic allegiance. In fact this definition, according to Maududi

has provided the legal and cultural basis on which Islamic society has been organised. By it

people are recognised as being a part of the Muslim ummah (corrununity) and have their rights

guaranteed as Muslims. However, this will not be the basis all which Muslims will be judged

in the Hereafter. This legal affirmation may be sufficient for earthly purposes where men can

39


only see the exterior but God will judge between the true Muslim (Mumin - true believer);

'Allah sees deep into your hearts and knows precisely the degree of your Iman [faith].' The

one who has wholly devoted his life only to God will be judged a mumin and the one who has

not a munafiq (hypocrite).

These lists are not meant to convey a chronological changing of Maududi' s ideas, and indeed

there is a level of overlap between them, but rather, seen together, they show us that Maududi

recognised that individuals within the Muslim community were not uniformly the same.

Written at different times and in different contexts the lists indicate that Maududi both had a

tendency to say the same thing but in slightly different ways but also to add classifications that

he may have omitted before or were the focus of the specific discussion at hand. For him there

were various levels and kinds of impurity that needed to be identified and cleansed in order for

the Muslim community, as a whole, to finally be able to realise the revitalisation and renewal

that he envisioned and which he believed would ultimately lead to the restoration of a

powerful religious, economic, cultural and political Islamic society. Realistic or not, Maududi

was a dreamer who passionately believed in his vision for a renewed Islamic society in India.

Maududi asked: Why are Muslims humiliated today? (1997:57). The answer he gave was that

it was because there are too many Muslims who are not totally devoted to believing and living

their lives (in every area) wholly consistent with the teachings of the Qur 'an and the Sunnah.

They have turned off the straight path. It is because of these kinds of so-called Muslims that

Muslims have lost political control of not only the subcontinent but also of the Turkish

Caliphate. If only Muslims would tum back to Allah with whole hearted devotion, if only they

would allow the teachings of the Qur 'an and the Sunnah to be their guides in every aspect of

their lives then Islam would once again return to its fanner glory where Muslims would both

live lives pleasing to Allah (right relationship with God, other Muslims and the world around

them) but would also live under political control of their own societies. While it may seem that

this position would encourage a view that one should wait until Muslims in society are

renewed in their faith before seeking political control, for Maududi, as we will see, the

legitimate role of government in an Islamic context, is to take an active stand in enforcing that

'renewal' in society. This became even more true in Maududi' s thinking when he moved to

Pakistan after partition (1947) and saw the possibilities of a truly Islamic state taking place.

40

<Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

II. GOLWALKAR

Chapter 2

Golwalkar, similarly, had visions for the transformation of the whole of society, in this case,

the wider Hindu community. And like Maududi he too saw this transformation beginning with

the need for self-definition and the renewal of the inner person as a pre-requisite for lasting

societal change. Ideas, to be effective, must have strong foundations and it is on these

concerns for a clearly defined identity that Golwalkar and Maududi (see above) based their

thinking and used them as a springboard to broader issues. Some of these issues will be

discussed later.

Golwalkar incorporated many ~f Savarkar's ideas concerning the definition of a Hindu and the

Hindu community. Like Savarkar, Golwalkar begins his discussion of Hindu identity from a

corporate or community level, or in their terms, a 'national' level. A Hindu derives his/her

identity in direct relationship to their identification as being part of the Hindu Nation

(Rashtra). Having defined the Hindu Nation Golwalkar then diagnoses what went wrong for

the Hindu community - a loss of national [selfJ consciousness. His prescriptionJantidote for

the problem is the education and transfonnation of individual Hindus into what he refers to as

the 'ideal Hindu manhood' (1996:436ff). These transformed Hindus, wholly devoted to this

end, will then ideally be merged into a revitalised Hindu Nation - the true focus of worship.

A. The Problem - 'Our National Malady' - Loss of living National Consciousness

Although We or our Nationhood Defined (originally published in 1939) came a little over a

decade later than Savarkar's Hindutva - Who is a Hindu? (originally published in 1923), both

sought to bring definition to the Hindu community. By defining Hindus in tenns of territory,

blood and culture, and by claiming the Hindu Nation to be synonymous with what was then

geographically the Indian subcontinent, both Golwalkar and Savarkar laid claim for the Hindu

community to the rights of rulership culturally and politically5 over the land and peoples of

this area. The problem, as Golwalkarperceived it, was that over the last thousand years or so

41


there has been a 'loss of living consciousness of one Hindu nation' by the Hindu Nation. After

an initial period of prosperity and perfect harmony the [one] Hindu Nation succumbed to a

sense of security and carelessness which eventually led to the break up into smaller

principalities.

This breakdown of 'consciousness' and 'kingdom' made the Hindu Nation 'vulnerable to

attack from without', firstly in the fonn of Buddhism (although originating from Indian soil

Savarkar claims that Indian Buddhists too became dominated by foreign nations - 1989:22

29), and later in the form of Islam and the British (1989: 14-1 7). The Hindu Nation succumbed

to the political, religious and cultural power and influence of these foreign forces. If they did

not totally reject their Hindu roots they certainly aped foreign manners, customs and ideas. As

a result the Hindu Nation became 'deculturalised', 'denationalised', suffering 'a loss of

national consciousness', of 'national sentiment', a 'donnancy of national feeling' while at the

same time 'suppressing noble patriotism' and 'real nationality'. Those people who made up

the Hindu Nation had allowed a kind of stupor or ignorance to overcome them and dull their

real sense(s) of identity.

B. The Antidote - Restoring National Consciousness - 'Ideal Hindu Manhood'

According to Golwalkar, what was needed was 'cultural regeneration', a kind of 'Hindu

National renaissance' that involved rejuvenation of that dulled consciousness and of 'Hindu

reorganisation'. A Nation in ignorance needs to be once again informed of its true identity and

reorganised to regain the place of prominence and dominance it once held. For Golwalkar this

did not simply mean an acknowledgement of one's cultural roots, it also required a renewal of

Hindu philosophical thinking and practice6• This was something that contrasted him with

Savarkar who steered clear of overt Hindu religious terminology (perhaps reflective of his

own more atheistic beliefs) but which was very much a part of Golwalkar's personal history

(as mentioned earlier).

5 Savarkar in particular was more associated with the latter idea, but as I will show, it was also true forGolwalkar.6 Re-interpreted and applied to the present circumstances by Golwalkar.

42


In a kind of paradox, Golwalkar seems to recognise that even given the above there is still

great difficulty in defining, or perhaps in others accepting his definition of what a Hindu is.

Golwalkar claims that Hindu society or culture ultimately 'is a living reality which all of us

feel [italics mine] and experience in every drop of our blood. But though we cannot define it,

we can and must appreciate the special features which mark out the Hindus as a distinct

people' (1996:99, see also p122). It was as much as anything an appeal to the heart and

emotions as it was to any intellectual reasoning - 'We feel (Hindus) therefore we are

(Hindus).'

Rejecting a negative understanding of a Hindu as one who is 'non-Muslim' (which he claims

the then political leaders were apt to do) Golwalkar sought to instil positive content into the

word. The transformation of the Hindu Nation begins when individuals within that nation

wake up out of their self inflicted stupor (if you like a kind of self-forgetfulness). He then

outlines what this waking up or transformation (ideal state of manhood) involves. In

terminology reminiscent of Brahminical thinking (compare, Jaffrelot, 1999:78; Hansen,

1999:94-95) Golwalkar begins by emphasising the fact that, for the Hindu, life is not without

purpose. That purpose is not measured in earthly terms such as position, power, name or fame

but in the 'realisation of his true nature - innate Spark of Divinity, the Reality in him, which

alone takes a man to the state of everlasting supreme bliss' (1996:55). A Hindu then is one

who recognises that he/she is on a journey of self-realisation to becoming one with the

Ultimate Reality (moksha).

For Golwalkar this is not a 'one time conversion event' but a process that involves 'the law of

cause and effect (karma) where every action (cause) has its effect in this process. One life will

not suffice to reach the goal but through the continuous effect of multiple rebirths

(reincarnation) and honest effort a person will eventually completely rid them-self of 'the least

trace of ignorance of his true Divine Self' (1996:56). While recognising the great diversity in

paths of devotion in Hindu society Golwalkar believed there was one common dharma (way

of life) which held it together - it was the 'same philosophy of life, the same goal, the same

beliefs in the supremacy of the inner spirit over the outer gross things of matter, the same path

in re-birth, the same adoration of certain qualities like brahmacharya [control of the senses],

satya [truth], etc, the same holy samskars [spiritual disciplines] (the brackets mine) ... '

43


(1996: 102). These ideals or values linked all sections of Hindu society together and must be

fostered if any lasting transformation of society was to take place.

What kind of conduct is necessary to progressively realise the 'Ultimate Reality'? Referring to

the Bhagavad Gita, Golwalkar says that one must act out of a sense of duty and without selfish

motive. In other words one must do the right thing without personal attachment, without

thought of receiving any reward or fruit from our action. Having detached oneself from the

effects of our actions we are better able to concentrate on our True Self - 'Do your work, do

your duty in a selfless spirit.' (1996:57). Originally the varna-vyabastha (Hindu social order

i.e. Brahman, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Sudra) demarcated what those duties performed were to be,

and when done in a spirit of selfless service, when one worshipped God through such duties,

society would function harmoniously. But for Golwalkar, the reality was that now 'our

(Hindu) people should be reinstalled as the living God in our hearts ... that we are all children

of this great and sacred motherland Bharat Mata' (1996:116). One's duty should now be to

selfless service in the cause of the Hindu people rather than to one's traditional place in the

social order. This 'pure spirit of oneness' transcends the inequality that had wrongly crept into

the Varna system.7

This is not a mere metaphysical or abstract way of thinking. 'Ultimate Reality' must and can

be seen in this objective world. The objective manifestation of the Reality in the world that

can be felt and experienced and by which one may be able to complete the process of

realisation is 'man' (or humankind). Humankind (more specifically, the 'Hindu Nation') is to

be the object of worship and service.

Man does not live alone; he shuns solitude. He is gregarious by nature. So, human beings come togetherand live as social beings in the form of society. Thus he can live well, develop, and manifest the best inhim. He can rise in the social rung and progress towards the fulfilment of the aim of life. It means thatthe building up and maintenance of a social order capable of affording each individual full opportunitiesto identify with wider and wider social groups and serve society with all he possesses, is the best way forlighting up the path of every individual towards the realisation of the Ultimate Truth...Service tohumanity is verily service to God (1996:57).

Hindu Society must be focused towards the welfare of humanity, not on the accumulation of

or desire for earthly possessions. In traditional Hindu society, the persons who have evinced

the greatest honour and respect from great and small alike have been those, the sanyasins, who

have shunned the material world and focussed on the more important - the 'inner

7 There were certainly some that were highly critical of Golwalkar's reformist ideas. See for instance in Kohli,1993 :91; Andersen and Damle, 1987:81.

44

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies' Chapter 2

possessions'. They are the example for Hindu society. The end goal is achieved when a person

has been able to come to a point where one's greatest loyalty is to the nation over and above

all other 'lower' forms of attachment - those other things which would claim ones allegiance

(Anderson and Damle, 1987:76).

Golwalkar challenges his Hindu audience, whether they are this kind of 'positive Hindu',

whether these feelings and ideals are theirs or whether they are Hindus because of the force of

circumstances, the accident of birth, or because they have simply managed to avoid

conversion to Islam or Christianity8. The challenge remains for those who c~ll themselves

[True] Hindus to assimilate all those key Hindu characteristics that will enable the Hindu

community to once again 'stand before the world as positive, dynamic Hindus.'

Golwalkar summarises his thoughts on this when he says,

Therefore, though the idea of organising Hindu Society may appear to be very simple, it really meansthat first of all we should be keenly conscious in our day-to-day life of our Hindu heritage and shouldmould every aspect of our life in keeping with those great traditional values. In all that we do, in ourdress, in our behaviour and in all walks of life, that stamp of and conviction should be vividly manifest.This is the prime responsibility that rests upon us. (1996:59)

One who calls himself a Hindu must begin by imbibing the deep and positive samskars (ideals

lived out in daily life) of the Hindu Nation and practising them in day-to-day life. These ideals

include a life-long commitment to 'discipline and self-restraint, which purify and strengthen

him [sic] to reach the Supreme Goal in life' (1996:60-61). It is the development of Hindu

character - 'The ideal Hindu manhood' - which will ultimately transform Hindu society. While

falling short of claiming the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as the source books for Hindus

to guide their life by (a sticking point for those Hindus who do not regard them as their source

of divine inspiration for life)9 Golwalkar certainly encourages and urges Hindus to see them as

worthy guideposts for identifying those very values and ideals that are embedded in Hindu

culture and which make up Hindu life.

8 Recently there has been a 'second-wave' of conversions ofDalit (low-caste) Hindus to Buddhism led by a mancalled Ram Raj, following in the footsteps of Ambedkar of earlier years. Although Golwalkar would haveopposed this, as the present RSS does, at least, in their eyes, it is a conversion to an Indic religion and not to aperverted foreign one - in other words, a 'lesser of two evils'.9 According to Golwalkar the Hindu dharma, way of life, is not dependent on any individual person or oneparticular religious book as the supreme authority for their dharma or sanskriti ~ see 1996:395.

45


Golwalkar opposed those Hindus who seemed to promote the Hindu cause out of either

reaction against the actions of Muslims (negative Hinduism) or for political objectives. Instead

he emphasised that a person must uphold the Hindu cause because this is a 'positive conviction

[italics mine] that this is my Hindu Rashtra, this is my dharma, this is my philosophy which I

have to live and set up as a standard for all the nations to follow ...this should be the solid

basis for Hindu reorganisation' (1996:60). This involves not mere lip service or external

affirmation but it must be something lived with understanding and conviction (Golwalkar

refers to this conviction as a Hindu's 'sacred duty' ~ 1996:151-157,433), some thing which

should be able to be realised (not be afraid to put into practice) in every area of a person's life,

personal and public.

Golwalkar believed that the time had come for Hindus to reinstall (or worship) Hindu society

(people) as the 'living God in our hearts' and that the 'supreme call of the times is to revive

the spirit of inherent oneness' (1996:116-117). According to Golwalkar (and akin to his earlier

diversion from a more rationalistic approach that Hindus are Hindus because they 'feel' they

are), unlike people of other faiths, Hindus are born Hindus, 'he gets his first samskar when he

enters the mother's womb and the last when his body is consigned to the flames ...We are

Hindus even before we emerge from the womb of our mother' (1996: 117). Because Hindus

are also bound together by ties of blood and history they must remain as one, recognising that

society is the only permanent reality (dhruvam) and that all else (politics, caste, language,

province etc) are transient (adhruvam) (1996: 118). The transient must always be subservient

to the permanent. Every individual Hindu must therefore devote themselves to the cause of

building one unified, whole and integrated Hindu Nation or in Golwalkar's words 'to bring to

life the all-round glory and greatness [param vaibhavam] of our Hindu Rashtra' (1996:43).

46


CONCLUSION

Maududi and Golwalkar both believed that their Muslim and Hindu societies desperately

needed transforming. For this process to be lasting it must first begin through the

transformation of individual lives. Both sought to define the ideal Muslim/Hindu. For

Maududi, this meant returning to the prescriptions of godliness that are found in the revered

sources of Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Muslims need to be made aware of the

knowledge of the truth, of the Unity and Sovereignty of God, and of humankind's need to

respond in worship and total obedience to that demanding overlordship. Only true and total

obedience, only complete submission and devotion to Allah and His Will in every area of a

person's life will suffice to bring about the desired transformation of Muslim society and to

which Maududi passionately called his audience. Indeed only such a Muslim is a true Muslim,

all others are really kafirs (unbelievers) in the sight of Allah for they have given their

allegiance (partially or wholly) to other authorities. The once powerful Muslim society had

fallen short because of the failure of Muslims to know and obey the truth.

Golwalkar's definition of a Hindu referred to Savarkar's earlier ideas. A Hindu was one who

resided in a particular sacred geographical land, was tied in 'inherent' blood to those similar

others, and inherited a way of life (religion) or culture that found its roots 'from eternity' in

the same sacred area and among the same sacred people who spoke the same sacred language.

Hindu society had fallen from its once lofty position because of the failure of Hindus to

embrace the inherent oneness that existed and could be felt. A kind of self-forgetfulness of the

true national consciousness (the ideals of society represented in their culture - sanskriti) that

always existed had overcome Hindus. Hindus therefore needed a wake-up call to shake off this

stupor they had allowed to overcome them, to re-embrace the ideals inherent in their culture

and to once again hold firmly the conviction that the Hindu Nation must truly be the focus of

their worship and sacrificial service, in all areas of life. All else must be subservient to the

Hindu Nation.

Both Maududi and Golwalkar called for transformation of individual lives in order to bring

transformation to the whole of society. Both believed that their respective societies had

faltered because of an ignorance of right knowledge of what a true Muslim/Hindu was and that

what was needed was an 'awareness campaign' to counter this. Maududi and Golwalkar

47

"


sought to bring their communities back to a sense of 'God-consciousness'. For Maududi this

was a call for humankind to recognise and subrrrit to the will of God (who is 'without') in

absolute obedience, as a servant would to his/her master. For Golwalkar it was the challenge

for 'God (who is 'within') realisation' - The putting aside of ignorance and world-centreness

through self-less service to the Hindu Nation. Both called for a return to wholehearted

devotion to the ideals that formed the very basis for their respective society (the Muslim

scriptures/Hindu culture) - a devotion that would influence every area of a person and

society's life and which would be totally subservient to the ideal. Allegiance or ultimate

authority was another important element for these men. Maududi saw it as an'imperative for

humankind to bow absolutely to the authority of God (Allah) and therefore to His Law, as the

Supreme guide and basis for life decisions. Golwalkar believed that the Hindu's ultimate

allegiance lay in their culture, the ideals embedded in it and to the Hindu Nation - the outward

manifestation of these things. 10 Maududi believed that one was not born a Muslim; it was an

individual's heart response to Allah, based on right knowledge of the truth revealed in Islam.

On the other hand, Golwalkar was convinced that Hindus were born Hindus. They just needed

to recognise reality, this inherent oneness.

But it was not only transfolTIlation of individual lives that Maududi and Golwalkar were after.

In the end they sought to draw lines or boundaries to define who were true Muslims or true

Hindus, and who were not. Though their answers were contrasting, their goal was the same.

Clarifying this issue also had added benefits. It defined more clearly who their enemies were.

Secular, westernised kafirs according to Maududi or western, Muslim and Christian foreigners

mleccas/foreign ways according to Golwalkar.

Though corrring from two widely different religious backgrounds, and therefore, world-views,

Maududi and Golwalkar ultimately converge in terms of the direction of their ideas. The

answers to the question of identity - initially of individuals, but finally of community (as we

will see in the next chapter) - fonn the building blocks for the transfonnation of society.

10 A certain vagueness in definition is deliberate in an attempt at including as many in the Hindu fold as possibleand to avoid division based on particular religious or philosophical differences.

48


CHAPTER THREE

Chapter 3

QUESTIONS OF IDENTITY: WHO ARE WE - THE COMMUNITY, NATION,

NATIONALISM?

AND WHO ARE THEY ~THE ' THREATENING OTHERS'?

In the previous chapter the question of identity in terms of the individual was addressed:

Who am I as a Hindu or as a Muslim and where do'!' fit in the visionary transformation of

society as espoused by Maududi and Golwalkar, and showed how the answer to this

question was at the core to the thinking of both Maududi and Golwalkar. The identity and

transformation of the individual inevitably leads us to the identity and transformation of

the group, community or society. Ultimately, no matter how much they emphasise the

importance of the renewing of individuals, Maududi's and Golwalkar's goal is not

individual but societal revitalisation, of the wider Hindu and Muslim communities. In this

light, and as we trace their journeys on which their ideas about religion and society

developed, this chapter will focus on group identity ~ how do they see those groups who

constitute the 'faithful' and those who are considered the 'other'. The specific context of

the early-mid twentieth century requires us to consider these ideas in the terms of

community, nation and nationalism.

I. Maududi and the idea of Nationalism

A. Conflict with the Traditionalists and the Modernists

As already noted in the first chapter the push for national self-determination was dominant

in both Muslim and Hindu communities on the subcontinent in the first half of the

twentieth century. Maududi found himself in opposition to the two major attitudes

prevailing at the time. On the one hand the Deobandi ulama, the traditional custodians of

the spiritual life of the Muslim community in India, joined hands with the Indian' National

Congress in putting forward the idea of a broad-based coalition supporting 'Indian

nationalism' that included all religious communities. The goal was independence from

British rule under the banner of Indian self-governance that did not single out any specific

community!. On the other the 'modernists', who benefited from and supported European

education and development initially supported a compromise in co-existing with the

49

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Ch~fJter 3

British. A further group splintered from the 'modernists' and developed the idea of a

completely separate homeland for the Muslim community. These 'separatists', led by

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, advocated the two-nation theory (i.e., that

there are two nations in India, one Muslim and the other Hindu). They declared that the

avowed goal for the Muslim community was not collaboration with the British, nor with

the Indian nationalists (i.e. The Indian National Congress) but rather a separate political

land (nation) where the Muslim community would be the dominant/majority community

this land they called 'Pakistan' (Land of the Pure).

The reasons for Maududi's opposition to all these proposals give us insight to his thinking

particularly as we begin to consider the broader idea of what relationship religion has with

the state. Maududi opposed the Deobandi ulama because he did not believe that any right

thinking Muslim could agree to a Western ideological formulation of nationalism that

negated the role of the religious point of view in society, which was the cornerstone of the

Muslim world-view of life. The very idea of nation for Maududi was a 'Western and false

concept'. For Maududi it was just as bad to push for a separate political homeland. Such a

state Maududi claimed, would 'safeguard merely the material interests of Indian Muslims

and neglect their spiritual life, as none of the leaders including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had

Islamic mentality or Islamic habits of thought' (Madan, 1997:139). It would be a country

or nation where Muslims would be a majority but not necessarily a state that would be

governed by Islamic law or principles. It could not work because the very so-called leaders

of the Muslim community failed to live out Islamic ideals in their own lives an essential

pre-requisite for successful Islamisation.

B. Islam is Opposed to the Ideas of Nation and Nationalism

Maududi believed strongly that Islam was against the very ideas of nation and nationalism

and was no doubt influenced greatly by the 'disturbing' events that led to the break up of

the Turkish caliphate by Western influenced secularists and the rise of nationalist

movements particularly among the Arabs.

Firstly, Maududi advocated the idea that the ultimate goal of Islam was not independent

Muslim nation states but rather a 'world state':

I Maududi accused them of 'drinking Jawaharlal's suddhi like sweet syrup' so leading Muslims astray.(Rafiuddin Ahmed, 1994:675)

50


.. .in which the chains of racial and national prejudices would be dismantled and allmankind incorporated in a cultural and political system, with equal rights and equalopportunities for all, and which hostile competitions would give way to friendly cooperation between peoples that they might mutually assist and contribute to the materialand moral good of one another (Maududi, 1993a: 13).

Commenting on Maududi' s thinking Madan writes that Maududi 'envisaged a future for

Indian and later Pakistani Muslims in which they would be co-sharers of Islamic destiny on

a global scale .. .in his own words, "a rational nationality of believers [constituting] a world

conununity of Islam'" (Madan, 1997:143). Maududi saw the Muslim community on a

global scale. A Muslim's sense of identity cannot be based on particular racial, cultural,

linguistic or political criteria, for Islam transcends all these but rather in their participation

and solidarity with the world-wide community of believers, the Islamic ummah. This

community is bound together with the conviction of the truth of worshipping God,

performing one's duties and obeying divine commands. Made up of those who profess

these beliefs, this global community is in fact one nation, while those who reject them are

another. Therefore humanity, not simply the people of India, is divided into two nations:

the one of Islam and belief, and the other of those who do not believe (and therefore do not

follow the truth). We return therefore, to the Islamic idea of the two 'houses' or 'lands':

dar ul-Islam (land or house of Islam) and dar ul-harb (land or house of war). The

community's boundaries are not defined by nationality, culture, territory or language but

by those who are of the faith of Islam - this community transcends all of the above

qualifications and must remain so if it is truly Islamic.

Maududi was particularly addressing the movements towards independence and

nationalism in the Indian context. Utilising a rationalistic approach Maududi states that

nationalism can only take place where either a particular 'nationality' already exists (i.e.,

bound by culture, language, religion, geography) or if it does not it must of necessity come

into being (1993a: 43ft). He stated that there were only really two kinds of nationalities

'political nationality' or 'cultural nationality'. 'Political nationality' comes into existence

when a group of people are governed by one political system, even though the people

themselves may not be homogenous (i.e., from different cultures). According to Maududi,

this kind of nationality does not give birth to nationalism. On the other hand 'cultural

nationality' is that kind of nationality which:

... is found among those people who are of one religion; who are identical in their thoughts, ideasand sentiments and feelings; who display the same kind of moral characteristics; who hold commonview-point in relation to all important problems of life - a view-point which may have effected auniformity even in the cultural and social manifestations of their life; who take common standards

51


. :~, ~..

of likes and dislikes' lawfulness and unlawfulness, sacredness and profaneness; who mutuallyunderstand their susceptibilities; who are familiar with the habits, temperaments and leanings of oneanother; who are bound together by these ties of blood and affection because of inter-marriages andsocial relations; who are liable to be motivated by the same historical traditions - in short it is foundonly among those who mentally, spiritually, morally, culturally and socially have become onepeople, an organic whole. Ifnationalism can sprout, it can do so only in the soil ofsuch nationality.Only those people, who manifest this nationality, can develop a common national type and evolve acommon national idea. (Italics mine - 1993a: 43-44)

Maududi further claims that nationalism can only take birth from 'cultural nationality' and

that it is clear that the people of India do not constitute a cultural nationality but rather is

made up of many cultural nationalities. To form a new nationality therefore, either the

culture of one nation may conquer and absorb the cultures of other nations or a common

culture will evolve. Getting to the point Maududi states emphatically that on this basis

nationalism can only be the goal of those who plead for 'Muslim Nationalism' or 'Hindu

Nationalism' (ibid, p45). Here Maududi and Golwalkar (and company) suddenly converge.

The reason is that the description that Maududi gives above is virtually a word for word

rationale for the movement of Hindu nationalism. Maududi immediately, however,

diverges because he has already made it clear that while there may be such a thing as

'Hindu nationalism', India is far from a homogenous Hindu culture and therefore India

cannot be founded on 'Hindu-cultural nationality' (c.p. Savarkar/Golwalkar). Further, it is

incongruous even blasphemous to say that there could be such a thing as 'Muslim

nationalism' when it is viewed in limited territorial terms. He goes as far as to claim that

this expression is as contradictory as 'Communist Fascist', 'Socialist Capitalist' or a

'Chaste Prostitute'! (1993a: 12-13)

Since Muslims should not be identified with any particular national identity it is clear that

any form of territorial nationalism is opposed to Islam. This ideological position left

Maududi with problems when, after independence in 1947, Maududi and many of his

followers decided to leave India and move to the 'nation-state' of Pakistan, the very idea of

which he had so strongly opposed. In order to justify both his presence in the country and

his ongoing participation in the life of the nation of Pakistan, Maududi clarified his

previous opposition, 'I honestly believed, and still believe, that it was my duty to remind

Muslims that their objective should not be just the setting up of a Muslim national state but

of setting up an Islamic state, and that they should try to build up the personal qualities and

character which was essential for the tasks involved' (Ahmed, 1994:676). Nevertheless, the

detractors of Maududi and the Jama'at- I-Islami would continue to hold this against them

for some time to come.

52


But it was not merely the fact that Maududi saw that a Muslim's primary identity was in

this global ummah, he honestly believed that Islamisation was the 'final dispensation

through which God will establish his kingdom... Islam as the final revolution will not just

be political and administrative like the Muslim rule in India that was replaced by the

British, it will effect the total transformation of the world' (Singh, 2000: 14). Maududi was

not simply seeking to answer the question of identity here. He believed that the total

transfonnation of the world under Islam was the inevitable outcome of the purpose of

things. It was the direction that all Muslims should be working towards. As an international

revolutionary movement jihad (holy struggle) becomes the process by which this

'revolutionary struggle' is initiated [against unIslamic systems of government] and the

means by which the objectives of Islam are achieved [to replace these unIslamic

governments with Islamic rule] (Choueiri, 1997:144; also Maududi; 1997:106). A corollary

of this for Maududi is that 'an attack on an Islamic state is not simply an aggression upon

its territories but a direct assault on Islam' (Ahmed, 1991: 104) and a call for jihad or

retaliatory action and support against such states (aggressors) which are persecuting

Muslims is a legitimate response2.

Secondly, Maududi had problems with the fact that nationalism was a secular concept,

born out of a western European context that encouraged competition and conflicts between

neighbouring nation-states. In an essay (originally written in the 1930s) outlining his

thoughts on the nationalism issue in pre-partition India Maududi claims that the whole

foundation of nationalism is completely wrong. It was built on political, economic,

linguistic and cultural foundations that promoted the 'ancient practice of racial prejudice'

(Maududi, 1993a: 18). The effects of nationalism produce national pride, national

consciousness, national self-preservation and national prestige/aggrandisement which,

together, resulted in wars and aggression in the pursuit of the above.

Writing in the 1930s Maududi was very aware of the growing National Socialist movement

in Germany. The Nazis under Hitler promoted the very kind of nationalism that Maududi

considered an 'evil'. Commenting ~n this breed of nationalism Maududi says:

2 I will comment more onjihad in the context of the state in the fifth chapter. Maududi has much more to sayabout jihad which would take up another thesis to explain (see for instance Maududi, 1991 :96, 106;1997:285-303; Choueiri, 1997:142-145; Lawrence, 1989:216-217; Ahmed, 1991:94, 104ft). Nevertheless Iwill add that he does qualify and further eloborate on this statement. Needless to say many radical Muslim

53


The national self-consciousness of a nationalist can never brook it that he should take as his heropersons who do not belong to his nationality; accept the central importance and sanctity of suchplaces as are not situated within his country; admit the cultural influence of a language which maynot be his own, secure inspiration from traditions which may have been imported from outside. Hewould regard all these things not only as foreign but would look upon them with that displeasureand hatred with which everything of foreign invaders is received, and would endeavour his best toelimillate and cast out all these external influences from the life of his nation. It is the naturaldemand of his nationalistic sentiment that he should associate his sentiments of sacredness andsanctity with his own home-land, that he should sing hymns to rivers and mountains of his owncountry, that he should revive his ancient national historical traditions (traditions which this foreignreligion describes as the relics of the age of ignorance) and pride in them. That he should relate hisown past and link his national culture with that of his ancestors in a chronicle sequence, that heshould take as his heroes, historical or legendary or real In short, it is in the nature and constitutionof nationalism that it should condemn everything that comes from the outside and praise thosethings which are products of its own home. (1993a: 32-33)

His comments once again amazingly echoed the words of Golwalkar/Savarkar in their own

extrapolation of Hindu Nationalism. Ultimate nationalism is where 'the whole world'

revolves around the nationality of one culture/land/people as defined by a particular person

or group. This culture/land/people is then revered and honoured to the exclusion of other

outside 'foreign' influences.

Maududi had some strong words to say about nationalism. Instead of promoting unity and

harmony (solidarity) in the world nationalism has divided human beings. It has become

humankind's 'greatest curse', whose ideas have 'degraded man to the level of beasts, they

have made him worse than wolves' (1993a:20, 25). Elsewhere he states that, 'these satanic

principles have stood as formidable obstacles and powerful adversaries against the moral

and spiritual teachings [i.e. universal brotherhood] embodied in the heavenly books, and

against the law of God '(brackets mine ~ 1993a:26). It is appropriate here to refer to

comments that Bruce Lawrence makes regarding the opposition that Muslim

fundamentalists have shown to the issue of nationalism. He states that nationalism as an

idea promotes patriotism (as defined by Maududi above in the effects of nationalism)

which appeals to ideals that become transterritorial and universal, 'closer to the notion of

ummah (i.e., corporate solidarity) , (italics mine ~ 1989:200). In other words Maududi and

his later contemporaries saw nationalism not only as a direct 'competitor" between

different nations but with Islam itself. At its heart nationalism is anti-religious (anti-Islam)

and will be a deterrent to the possibility a pan-Islamic movement becoming a reality.

Maududi claims that it was this very idea of nationalism that caused the downfall of the

dream for a Holy Christian Empire (which he saw as a positive religio/political structure ~

1993a: 16-18). He believed that the same response among the various people of Asia and

fundamentalists have used this idea in justifying their violent reaction to what they consider unlslamicgovermnents.

54

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chap~er 3

Arabia would also ring a 'death knell' for a pan-Islamic movement (the solidarity of the

Muslim ummah), dividing Muslim nation against Muslim nation.

Perhaps the most important grievance that Maududi held against nationalism was that it

claimed the same allegiance (loyalty) that belongs to God (Allah) and the 'shariats' 3 (the

revealed scriptures and the example of the Prophet Muhammad) of God alone. This

allegiance based on economic, racial or political considerations seeks the total

transformation of society, just like Islam, but based on national interests not on Islamic

principles. It is done for the sake of the nation, not for the sake of Islam. In other words the

nation and nationalism take the place of God. If we refer back to the previous chapter

regarding Maududi' s thoughts on the total Sovereignty of God and his law this makes

perfect sense. In Maududi's Islamic world-view God has claim of obedience over the life

of every person and over every area of life, He will brook no rivals. An attachment or

obedience to any other person, ideology or institution is a form of apostasy and idolatry

and falls into the category of kafr4. To quote Maududi again:

Nationalism is, indeed, a religion which stands as a rival, and adversary against the shariats of God.It opposes the shariats of God not only in the intellectual plane but also in practical working, [it]aims to establish its sovereignty in all these departme:1ts of human life whom the shariats of Godpropose to bring under their own control. (1993a:39)

In Lawrence's words nationalism became so despised because it demands the state (nation)

as an 'obedience-context'. What was called for, was for a patriotism that should be directed

towards the world-wide community of Muslims and against the ideas that lured Muslims

away from their faith and undermined the community:

Nationalism becomes the most despised front edge of secularism because it demands the state act asan obedience-context... 'In its [nationalism] stead', Lawrence continues, ' there should be anemphasis on the general welfare of all Muslims (malasha) exercised on behalf of the believersagainst the prevailing ignorance (jahliya) of time ...Nationalism resurrects the kind of tribalism orjayliya that Muhammad opposed and which early Muslims, temporarily overcame. In its stead thereshould be a patriotism that seeks the benefit of all states of society and of Muslims everywhere, i.e.,patriotism should replace qawmiya (or ethnocentrism) of one group with the wataniya (or solidarity)of all participants as equal participants in the Islamic ummah '. (1989:216. See also Choueiri,1997:102).

Turning his thoughts once again to the form of [cultural] nationalism exhibited in

Germany, Maududi states that it leads to the place where God is equated with the life-force

of the nation. The nation itself becomes the earthly manifestation of God, Hitler is his

Prophet and the 'national goals' the religion he brings. In other words the nation and its

traditional roots becomes the focus of worship, something which Maududi derided but

3 'shariats' - a term that Maududi uses to describe the sources for the Islamic religion and law (Shariah Law of God).

55


which Golwalkar, as we will see, promoted. Maududi believed the same thing would

happen to those Muslim nation-states that based their identities on nationalistic ideals

(1933a: 36).

As far as Maududi was concerned nationalism was at odds with Islam because it 'turns the

mind of man from Islam to ignorance ... [When it] enters the heart and mind of a Muslim

from one direction Islam leaves them from another direction ...Any Muslim who has

pledged himself to the evil of nationalism has been divorced by the angels of Islam'

(1993a:37-38). According to Maududi, the world has given itself to the ideology of

nationalism because it does not possess a 'natural moral teaching' by which it can keep

itself in check. The only cure for this sickness is in the shariats of God, and it is only

Muslims in the world that can represent His shariats (1993a: 40).

In summary, the 'nation' of Islam (dar ul-Islam) is the worldwide community of believers

(ummah), whose loyalty and allegiance is not to a particular culture, language or

geographical territory but to Allah and His shariats. Those outside of this community (in

every culture etc) lie in the 'nation' of war (dar ul-harb) where ignorance and unbelief

reign and which is characterised by conflict and rivalry. The choice for every person or

people is straightforward - acknowledge the Sovereignty of God and His law revealed in

Islam, or choose a path of 'evil', of nationalism, that leads to apostasy and its

consequences. The 'threatening others' for Maududi lay primarily in the ideas that secular

nationalism promoted, which Maududi saw as the very antithesis of the ideas and beliefs

inherent in Islam concerning the nature of God and the way the community is to function,

and in the people who had imbibed these ideas and sought to spread them in the Muslim

community.

II. Golwalkar and the idea of the 'Hindu Nation'

Maududi answered the question of 'community identity' in the context of opposing

'nationalism' as an idea. He advocated a community identity in tenns of a 'nation' that was

defined as a global transterritoriaVtranscultural-linguistic phenomena, the ummah or dar

ul-Islam. Golwalkar sought to answer the question of 'community identity' by promoting

the idea that the 'nation' is specifically 'Hindu' and 'Indian' and that 'nationalism' was

more its driving force.

4 Others spell this as 'kufr'.56

IBlood Brothers - Swam Enemies' Chapter 3

Golwalkar, and Savarkar before him, were intent on defining the 'Hindu Nation' both as a

way of establishing boundaries between those who were 'insiders' and 'outsiders' as

community identification but also to push forward the idea of a single, united dominating

(majority) community who should be the primary decision makers in the way the physical

manifestation of that nation is controlled (and this is not limited to the political arena) in

the event of a new political reality (i.e., independence from the British ~ see Hansen,

1999:13).

A. The 'Nation' defined in terms of Cultural, Racial and Territorial Unity and

Founded on a Series of Exclusions

1) The Hindu Nation (Rashtra)

D. Savarkar's groundbreaking work, Hindutva - Who is a Hindu (1923), established the

basic definitions and premises that later Hindu nationalists, such as Golwalkar,

incorporated as the guiding principles for the movement as a whole. It is vital to look at

Savarkar's thinking in order to appreciate properly Golwalkar's ideas. Savarkar defined the

term Hindutva as 'Hindu-ness'. He saw this as the key ingredient for understanding Hindu

identity. Other similar terms such as Hindu, Hindusthan and Hinduism are included in this

all-inclusive word. It was important for Savarkar to make this clear because there had been

so much debate over the term and definition of the word 'Hindu'. He felt all previous

definitions failed to adequately describe the word particularly as it related to identifying

the boundaries by which a person could be legitimately considered as one within the

Hindu-fold. Other terms were either too inclusive (fuzzy boundaries = no clear community

identity) or too exclusive (it did not include all those who should be included). Savarkar

attempted to reconcile the great differences between the'orthodox' and 'heterodox' within

the Hindu fold and arrived at a definition which he believed could include all sects, when

viewed as whole, but when looked at independently could be viewed as 'such and such

"'Dharma'" (e.g., Sikh Dharma, Buddha Dharma) (1989:102-106).

Basing his ideas on territorial and historical foundations Savarkar's Hindutva encompassed

a combination of three main areas (1989:115-116)5:

5 Savarkar took great pains to detail what these meant in the context of defining who could legitimately claimto be 'in' (i.e. a Hindu) and 'out' (a non-Hindu). Principally it required a person to fulfil all three areas, orotherwise, as Savarkar himself explains, other communities, whom he designates as mlecchas or foreigners(e.g. Muslims and Christians), could qualify. However, as he progresses in his thinking even Savarkar admits

57


1. A Common Land (or nation Rashtra) - geographically defined (from 'Sindu to

Sindu' - from the Indus - Himalayas - to the Seas) and to which a person felt

attached as both their 'Fatherland' (Pitribhu - physicaVpatriotic origin) and

their 'Holyland' (Punyabhu - spiritual origin)6. This meant, according to

Savarkar, that it included all those whose religious affiliations were derived

from those people whose blood originated in this land and race - i.e. - Vaidik,

Sanatan, Jain, Buddha, Sikh, Avaidak, Brahma, Chandel.

2. A Common Blood - Race (Jati) a person's forefathers came from the racial mix

of those who have resided in this 'Land' for an indeterminable thousands of

years.

3. A Common Civilisation (or Culture - sanskriti) - all that could be included in

the life of a civilisation (common language - SanskritlHindi, history, literature,

art, laws, rites, festivals etc). This definition seeks to both identify who is 'in'

and who is 'out'. Those who are not included are called mlecchas - foreigners.

These people are those who either originated geographically and racially out of

the 'Land' or who those who hold to religious beliefs that did not originate from

a person of the 'Land'. Clearly, those who claim to be Muslim or Christian fall

into this category but Sikhs, Buddhists and tribal peoples would be included

(see also Jaffrelot, 1999:27ff; Elst, 2001 :282f; Hansen, 1999:78-79; Sarkar in

Ludden, 1996:288-289).

Golwalkar following a similar approach to Savarkar's affinns that there is good historical

and 'blood' reasons for using the word 'Hindu' (and not simply because foreigners used it)

to describe the natural people of those residing in the geographical area of India. He refers

to the fact that the name Sapta-Sindhu was already given to the land and people as

mentioned in the oldest records in the world, the Rig Veda, and points out that'S' and 'H'

are commonly inter-changeable in Sanskrit so that Sapta-Sindhu can as equally be read as

Hapta Hindu (1996:98).

there may be the odd individual or so who may be considered Hindu without fulfilling all three requirements(i.e. there are loopholes!) See Savarkar, 1947: 129ffwhere he explains how Sister Nivedita (an Irish lady whohad embraced Hinduism but not married to a Hindu - another loophole) could still qualify as a Hindu.6 In this thesis, the words 'Fatherland' and 'Motherland' are often used. 'Fatherland is most often used in thesense of one's patriotism, a person's physical and emotional bonding for one's nation. 'Motherland' and'Holyland' are virtually synonymous and refer largely to a person's devotion and worship for one's nation, inother words, one's spiritual bonding to their nation.

58


Expanding Savarkar's 'three essentials', and utilising similar European modernistic ideas

of 'nation' Golwalkar formulates what he calls the 'famous five "Unities'" (1947:23). His

definition of the Hindu Nation included descriptions categorised under: 1. Land; 2.

People; 3. Religion; 4. Culture (#3 and #4 were closely linked); and 5. Language

(1947:24ff).

1) Land - Golwalkar emphasises that for a race to 'live the life of a nation' and

blossom they require a defined physical territory (preferably with natural

boundaries - i. e. the mountainous Himalayas In the north and the ocean seas in the

south referred to as Hindusthan or 'Land of the Hindus') encompassing an area

'extending from Iran in the west to the Malay Peninsula in the east, from Tibet in

the north to Sri Lanka in the south' Andersen and Damle, 1987:77; see also

Golwalkar, 1986:83-84). Interestingly, on the cover of Golwalkar's original

treatise on the subject (We) he includes a map of Bharat (another term for the Land

of India) that outlines most of the above countries, including Afghanistan. While

shying away from Maududi's global idea of what the term 'trans-territorial' meant,

Golwalkar certainly had in mind a geographical vision of India which included a

number of territories claimed by others as their own.

2) People (Race) - Golwalkar states that a Race is 'a hereditary society having

common customs, conunon language, common memories of glory and disaster, in

short, it is a population with a common origin under one culture' (1947:48-49).

The Hindu Nation incorporates all of these. In fact, unlike Savarkar, who seems to

recognise the idea that at some point in history Aryan peoples issued forth into this

'sacred land' (Hindutva p4ff), Golwalkar claims that Hindus have always existed

in Hindusthan, 'we Hindus came into this land from nowhere, but are indigenous

children of the soil always from times immemorial and are natural masters of this

country' (1949: 15). He later goes on to say:

The origins of our people, the date from which we have been living here as a civilised entity, isunknown to the scholars ofhistory...We existed when there was no necessity for any name. Wewere the good, the enlightened people. We were the people who knew about the laws of natureand the Spirit. We built a great civilisation, a great culture, and a unique social order. We hadbrought into life almost everything that was beneficial to man. Then the rest of mankind werejust bipeds and so no distinctive name was given to us ...The name "Hindu", derived from theriver Sindhu, has been associated with us in our history and tradition for so long that it has nowbecome our universally accepted and adored name (1996:73-74).

3) & 4) Religion (dharma) and Culture (sanskriti)- For Golwalkar these two

'unities' are closely linked to the point where it is difficult to distinguish them. He

speaks of religion (and for Golwalkar this was more closely, though not59

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' ChaI--l:er 3

exclusively, identified with Hinduism than Savarkar was willing to suggest) as

being the 'very life-breath of a people, where it governs every action of the

individual as well as of the society as a whole' and culture 'as being the

cumulative affect of age-long customs, traditions, historical ... and most

particularly of religious beliefs and their attendant philosophy...creating the

peculiar Race Spirit' [The term Golwalkar employed to describe the

'consciousness' or life-breath of the Hindu Nation - 1947:27].

5) Language - Any race that lives for an extended period of time in a given

location will evolve its own language its culture, religion, history, traditions etc.

Golwalkar claims that Sanskrit ('the dialect of the Gods') is the language that gave

birth to most of the languages of Bharat (India) and takes place of honour

linguistically for the Hindu Race. He supports Hindi, as the modem language

closest to Sanskrit, and as the language that should bring Hindus (Indians)

together.

2. Key ideas that emerge out of these 'five unities'

a. The Nation as 'Divine Mother' (Bharat Mata).

Evoking imagery that deeply impacted the Indian psyche as well as utilising concepts

intimately associated with Hindu religious tradition (see Andersen and Damle, 1987:777)

Golwalkar refers to this sacred land/geography as 'Divine Mother':

...a land which has been to us since hoary times the beloved and sacred Bharat Mata whose very namefloods our hearts with waves of pure and sublime devotion to her ... It was this picture of our motherlandwith Himalayas dipping its arms in the two seas, at Aryan (Iran) in the West and at Sringapur(Singapore) in the East, with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) as a lotus petal offered at her sacred feet by thesouthern Ocean, that was constantly kept radiant in people's minds for so many thousands of years.(1986:82, 84)

This imagery had the benefit of a 'two-sided coin'. On the one side is the land itself,

inhabited by her people, a place which nurtured and cared for her people and invoked a

sense of maternal devotion. The great wrong was that this same land had also been

desecrated and raped by various foreign invasions and the partition of India. The devotion

required to this land should not merely be expressed as patriotism (love for the nation) but

also of worship. The land is sacred, it is 'verily the chosen land of God Realisation'

60


(1996:85). The spiritual life and destiny of Hindu people is intimately linked with the

physical land of Hindusthan as well as being the place where the nation resides. The other

side of the coin is that the Hindu Nation is also referred to as the Divine Mother, of which

the land is merely a part of the sum. The Hindu Nation, as the Divine Mother, and

expressed in terms of the Hindu people and culture 'should be installed as the Living God'

in the hearts of each one (1996:116). This 'Living God' should be loved and served with

total devotion 'in a spirit of sacrifice for its cultural values and way of life' (Rashtra Bhakti

- Kohli, 1993: 17). In a similar vein Golwalkar says that one must also consider the nation

as both fatherland (pitrabhumi) and holyland (puyabhumi). Therefore:

It is up to us to keep a glow that highly evolved sentiment of mother towards our land. Now how arewe to express our devotion to her? Our people have been doing this until this day in a spirit ofreligious devotion. They go around the country of pilgrimages, follow the religious injunctions,recite hymns, worship and offer flowers and take baths in various holy waters. (Kohli, 1993:27)

Merely living on a piece of land is not sufficient to make one group of people a 'nation'.

For Golwalkar, the chief requirement was the emotional bond or sense of belonging that is

felt. It finds expression in unity of culture summarised as 'commonality in goals of life,

ideals of life, values of life' (Kohli, 1993: 17). It is what Golwalkar expressed earlier in this

paper. A Hindu is one because he feels he is one. This sentiment, stated as devotion to the,

'Divine Mother' characterises and holds the Hindu Nation together. 8

b. The Nation as the 'Living God'.

As the 'Living God' the Hindu Nation is not merely the object of worship and devotion but

of complete attachment. Hansen comments that the goal desired for every member of the

Hindu Nation (and in particular for the RSS member who is supposed to epitomise the

'ideal Hindu man') is that the individual eventually 'experiences a greater loyalty to the

nation than to any other 'lower' form of attachment' (1999:76). The bottom-line here is

allegiance. Ultimate authority lies not with family, caste, language or religious sect but in

the Hindu Nation and all else should remain subservient to it.9 The individual's identity is

meshed with that of the Nation. Therefore, Indian nationalism or Rashtratravad (expressed

7 Anderson and Damle explore this Mother image theme more deeply and then indicate the way the RSSrenerally have sought to utilise it in their communication (1987:77).

Hansen points out that the romanticist views expressed here by Golwalkar had their roots in the scholarshipof Orientalism prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries (1999: 10-11, 67ft).9 In this connection Gold suggests that 'Hindu Fundamentalism has emerged as an alternative path forpersonal religion that does not demand devotion to a particular deity, but rather concentrates on theidentification of the individual with the Hindu Nation, which for many may "appear more immediatelyvisible and attainable than the ritual cosmos of traditional Hinduism~' and "offer the most viable personalreligion available'" (in Embree, 1994:629).

61


in the ideas of Hindu nationalism), is founded on 'individual contribution and sacrifice for

the larger interest of the Rashtra which is the bigger entity' (Kohli, 1993:21).

The adulation of the Nation and the worship of it as 'God', as advocated by Golwalkar,

were precisely what Maududi envisioned as the natural outcome of the 'evil of

nationalism'. The product of nationalism for Maududi was the worship of all things

considered 'national' to the negation of anything else, the example for which he had seen

in Nazi Germany (1993:28,35 - see Quotes from Hitler and the creed of the Nazi Youth).

c. The Nation as 'Inherent Oneness'.

Golwalkar not merely advocated the merging of the individual under/within the Hindu

Nation, and the adoration of the Hindu Nation as the 'Living God'. He was also convinced

that the oneness that links the people of the Hindu Nation (community) together will be the

natural outcome: 'The whole of our people should be reinstalled as the living God in our

hearts ...Let us revive that pure spirit of oneness [i.e. what Golwalkar refers to earlier as the

'Race Spirit'] born out of the realisation that we are all children of this great and sacred

motherland Bharat Mata' (Golwalkar, 1986: 116). As children of this 'sacred motherland'

the people of the Hindu Nation have an ingrained unity and spirit of identity that ties them

together. Golwalkar sought to pursuade the people that it was their duty born with their

birth (sahaja karma) to recognise this, to 'realise' the truth of this, and then to respond

with complete devotion to uphold, strengthen and defend it against all adversaries. Again

Golwalkar comments:

... we as a people bound together by ties of blood and history, remain one and whole ... [therefore]Hindu society, whole and integrated, should forever be the single point of devotion for all of us. Noother consideration whether of caste, sect, language, province or party should be allowed to come inthe way of that single-minded devotion (ibid, pi18). [He goes as far as to say that] ' ...those who donot love Rama, i.e., the object of devotion, and who come to us as an obstacle must be considered asten million times an enemy, though they may be extremely near and dear to us. (ibid, p119)

According to Golwalkar the Hindu Nation is bound together through ties of cultural unity.

That societal unity, that 'inherent oneness' established over thousands of years existed in

'Bharat as one nation' (Kohli, 1993:31) must be 'reborn' in such a way that the Hindu

people, now realised as the 'Hindu Nation' find renewed identity in the community, in

their culture and in their way of life..

62


d. The Nation in Opposition to 'Threatening Others'

Chapter 3

A large part of Golwalkar's discourse is directed against/towards those he considered the

enemies of the Hindu Nation, or what Jaffrelot calls the 'Threatening Others' (1999:11),

and the need for the Hindu Community to rise up out of the weakness into which they have

allowed themselves to fall. This was most evident in his earlier work We which was written

(1938) at a time when he was beginning to take a greater leadership role in the RSS, and

the RSS itself was beginning to assert itself in a much greater way. More especially, it was

written before partition and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and the resulting

persecution of Golwalkar and the RSS. In this light a couple of well-known passages are

well-worth quoting:

In an nutshell we may say that in this land of ours we have lived for God knows how long, a greatNation of the grandest culture, that though, for the last thousand years or less, the land has beeninfested with murderous bands of despoilers in various parts, the Nation has not been conquered, farless subjugated; that through all these years it has engaged in a terrible struggle to free the land ofthis pest... In short, our history is the story of flourishing Hindu National life for thousands of yearsand then of a long and unflinching war continuing for the last ten centuries, which has not yet cometo a decisive close. And when we understand our history, thus rightly, we find ourselves not thedegenerate, down-trodden uncivilized slaves that we are taught to believe that we are today, but aNation, a free Nation of illustrious heroes, fighting the forces of destruction for the last thousandyears and determined to carry on this struggle to the bitter end with ever increasing zeal andunflagging national ardour. And Race spirit calls, National consciousness blazes forth and weHindus rally to the Hindu standard, the Bhagwa Diwaja lO

, set our teeth in grim determination towipe out the opposing forces (Golwalkar, 1949: 117-118).

And again:

Thus, applying the modern understanding of 'Nation' to our present conditions, the conclusion isunquestionably forced upon us that in this country, Hindusthan, the Hindu race, with its Hindureligion, Hindu culture, Hindu language...complete the natural Nation concept, that in fine,Hindusthan exists and must needs to exist the ancient Hindu nation and nought else but the HinduNation. All those not belonging to the nation i.e. Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language,naturally fall out of the pale of real 'National' life (ibid, p52)

10 The Bhagwa Diwaja or Bhagawa Dhwaj is the object of worship for members of the RSS. Referred to alsoas the 'guru', Golwalkar comments, 'It is in keeping with that sublime cultural tradition that the Sangh haskept before itself neither an individual nor a book as its authority but Bhagawa Dhwaj, the glowing symbol ofall that is good and great in our national life, and through that, is striving for the inculcation of pure devotionto the nation as a whole.' (Golwalkar, 1996:396).

63


And finally:

Chapter 3

...There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves into thenational race and adopt its culture, or to live at the sweet will of the national race. That is the onlylogical and correct solution. That alone keeps the national life healthy and undisturbed. That alonekeeps the Nation safe from danger of a cancer developing into the body politics and of the creationof a state within the state.

From this standpoint, sanctioned the experience of the shrewd old nations, the non-Hindu peoples inHindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold inreverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race andculture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards thisland and its age-long traditions but must also cultivate the attitude of love and devotion instead - inone word they, must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to theHindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - noteven citizens rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an oldnation, and let us deal, as old nations ought to deal, with the foreign races, which have chosen to livein our country. (ibid, p56) .

With strongly romanticist overtones Golwalkar claims for the Hindu Nation not only rights

to the geography of Hindusthan but also to the highest and purest of civilisations ~ the

Hindu civilisation. What then follows is a flowery piece of oratory intermingled with

vicious jibes against non-Hindu peoples. His use of the expression 'except for the last

thousand years or less' is a direct reference to Muslim rule in the sub-continent which we

have previously noted began about a thousand years ago. That event, for Golwalkar and

other Hindu nationalists, was the beginning of the decline of the Hindu Nation, which

apparently beforehand was virile, pure and united. It is clear from these passages, and he

makes it abundantly clear in his later writings, that the arch-enemies of the Hindu Nation

are primarily the Muslims with the Christians (and Communists) not far behind (e.g.

Golwalkar, 1996:124-132, 177-201).

While claiming that he is not against God being called by different names ('He cannot be a

Hindu who is intolerant of other faiths' - ibid, p125) Golwalkar states that the problem is

of a different nature. The critical issue here 'is whether THEY [Muslims and Christians]

remember that they are children of the soil' (ibid, p125). He claims that this is not the case

but that with conversion in their faith [to the foreign religion] there has also been,a change

in attitude, 'gone is the spirit of love and devotion for the nation' (ibid), that devotion,

which is the realisation of 'oneness', and which is so essential for the strengthening and

stability [identity] of the Hindu Nation. They are no longer emotionally bonded with the

Hindu Nation. Further, their feelings of identification have now transferred to the

'enemies' of the Hindu Nation, Islam and Christianityll. As members of foreign (non-

II Andersen and Damle make the point that a repeated characteristic 'in belief systems is the identification ofhostile forces which plot against the nation and which are disruptive strains in the country. These disruptive

64

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chap~er 3

Indic) religions those who claim to be Muslims and Christians now look to foreign lands as

their holy places (Palestine, Arabia), they name themselves after foreign peoples (i.e.

Arabs, Europeans), they speak foreign languages (Urdu, English) and have cut themselves

off from their' ancestral national moorings', merging themselves with the aggressors (ibid,

p126). These people have not only changed their faith but their national identity and are

guilty of treason by abandoning their mother-nation (ibid). Andersen and Damle point out

that it is not only the Muslim and Christian religions that are seen as a threat (because they

promote values seen to result in the denationalisation of those who embrace them) but also

the 'westernized' [Hindu] elite who champion the cause of capitalism, socialism, or

communism as solutions for Indian development (1987:72). They further state, that it is

because of the 'community orientation' of Christianity, and not simply the dogma itself,

that Christians are distanced from the larger [Hindu] nation or, in their own words,

'Because Christians are culturally different, they have separated themselves from the

"national soul''' (Ibid, p73). This community or 'national' orientation is a similar problem

with Muslims but with them the problem is far greater because of the sheer size of the

Muslim community (about 12% of the population - post-partition). Using Golwalkar's

tenus - adherence to another religion is akin to adherence to another culture that in tum

means adherence to another 'nation'. Other religions (cultures/religions) are stigmatised

because they represent both lower (lesser) fonus of civilisation and promote divided

loyalty.

The boundaries, therefore, which distinguish the 'Threatening Others' from the Hindu

Nation can be delineated by the five 'unities' that Golwalkar proposed. Put simply, the

person who denies one or all of the five 'unities' is the 'enemy'. Jaffrelot comments that

Golwalkar's definition of the Hindu Nation is more closed than Savarkar's (1999:56). For

Golwalkar, Hindus are identified with the Hindu Nation and the quality of 'being' a

member of the Hindu Nation is not so much something that is passed down through genes

(race) as it is through cultural tradition. These foreign enemies or mlecchas must realise

that to reside in Hindusthan they must willingly and knowingly be relegated to a

subordinate position under the Hindu Nation, stripped even of citizen's rights (see above

quote) 12. With the policies of Nazi Germany at the forefront of news in the late 1930s

forces are often identified with particular social groups, who are usually defined as different, united andpowerful' - 1987:72.12 In a different place Golwalkar states that for a 'foreign~ race to claim any kind of special treatment at thehands of the [Hindu] Nation it should not be 'an upstart, a new, voluntary settlement, and it should not be

65


Golwalkar made the following infamous comment in his earlier work We or our

Nationhood Defined (1938), and the one most quoted against him, on possible methods to

deal with problem minorities: 'To keep the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany

shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride

at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible

it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one

united whole, a good lesson for use in Hindusthan to learn and profit' (italics mine -

1949:43).

Elst comments that this quote reflects a view that Golwalkar later repudiated, and in fact

later disowned even to the point of withdrawing from future circulation (Elst,

2001b:82,92)13. He claims that present critics of the Hindutva movement and the RSS keep

quoting from it when in fact it is a view no longer held either by Golwalkar until his death

or the present RSS leadership. It certainly reflects a very extreme fascist type of view. It is

true to say however, that a cursory view of Golwalkar's wider writings does show that he

leans more toward a subordinate strategy for the minority communities rather than the

extennination method that Hitler and the Nazis employed toward the Jews and other

minority communities residing in Gennan controlled areas. It may be more appropriate to

quote his later 'sanitised' views reflecting the result of the persecution of the RSS and his

imprisonment following Gandhi's assassination (1948-1949), but also the political ground

realities that the RSS found themselves in a avowedly pluralistic and secular post-partition

India. Stating that there are different kinds of foreign dominations - political, economic,

cultural - Golwalkar goes on to say that it is 'our duty to call these our forlorn brothers

[those Hindus who have embraced Islam or Christianity], suffering under religious slavery

for centuries, back to their ancestral home' (1986: 128). In other words those who have

excluded themselves from the Hindu Nation can be assimilated, reintegrated or 'fused'

back into Hindu society and the Hindu way of life ('our dharma ') as lost brothers. The

goal is a kind of unity that includes characteristics typical of the foreign dominations he

mentioned earlier - political, economic, cultural and religious.

below 20% of the total population of the state.' (ibid, pp36-37). A convenient figure when one remembersthat the government population statistics are clear that Muslims make up 13%.13 Though Elst himself gives no concrete proof to this effect.

66


For Jaffrelot, Golwalkar's comments reflect another fonn of racism14, not of a biological

kind (i.e. in the typical use of the word 'racism') but rather a 'racism of domination'

(1999:38). It is not the kind of 'racism of extermination' that Hitler employed towards the

Jews and other minority races (and which Golwalkar himself disclaims, Golwalkar

1996: 131) in order to maintain racial purity but rather a form of socio-cultural racism15 that

places groups on a hierarchical scale reminiscent of the caste system where minority

(lower castes) were required to assimilate into society, but at a subordinate rank16

reflecting principles indicative of 'Indian Traditional xenology' (1999:38, 56). The

discrimination that was to be exercised towards the mlecchas 17 was not on the basis of

racial characteristics but by whether they observed the cultural rules recommended by the

[Hindu] Dharma. Golwalkar is more explicit:

We must revive once again the parakrama-vad. For that, we should make it clear that the non-Hinduwho lives here has a rashtra dharma (national responsibility), a samaja dharma (duty to society), akula dharma (duty to ancestors), and only in his vyakti dharma (personal faith) he can choose anypath which satisfies his spiritual urge. If, even after fulfulling all those various duties in social life,anybody says that he has studied Quran Sharif or the Bible and that way of worship strikes asympathetic chord in his heart, that he can pray better through that path of devotion, we haveabsolutely no objection. Thus he has his choice in a portion of his individual life. For the rest, hemust be one with the national current. That is real assimilation. (1996: 130)

In this scenario, traditional Hindu tolerance is 'limited' tolerance. If a person accepts the

conditions of subordination and assimilation, under the Hindu Nation, they are tolerated.

They may hold religious beliefs different to that of the Hindu 18 (Indic) religion but it must

remain private or personal, all external indications must demonstrate unity (allegiance) or

'oneness' with the Hindu wider community. That is, allegiance to external Hindu culture is

equal to Indian nationalism, allegiance to any other external culture is anti-national.

Paradoxically this is a view contrary to the holistic view that Golwalkar holds of religion

and which is discussed in the next chapter. In other words, what Golwalkar allows for

Hinduism he refuses for those of other faiths. As a thinker and protagonist for the cause of

Hindu nationalism the goal for Golwalkar through his pursuasive communication of the

above was 'to install the territorial boundaries of the nation as inner mental boundaries in

the minds of its citizens' (italics mine - Hansen, 1999:30). If Golwalkar could make the

14 In a recent publication Elst objects to the way Jaffrelot and others use the term 'racism' in connection withthe ideas of Golwalkar and the RSS and believes that it is inappropriate and misleading (2000: 132ff, 295ft).In the context of the discussion Jaffrelot also refers to this 'racism of domination' to Savarkar's ideas.15 Jaffrelot here refers to the term used by Pandey - 'an upper-caste racism' (1999:57).16 At least below the Brahmins.17 Golwalkar defined mlecchas as 'those who do not subscribe to the social laws dictated by the HinduReligion and Culture'. (Jaffrelot, 1999:56)18 Jaffrelot explains that the use of the term 'Hindu' is used less frequently than rashtriya ('national') orBharatiya ('this was the adjectival form of Bharat, the legendary name of the first Aryan who unified the

67


majority Hindu population think like he was thinking (a kind of indoctrination) he would

be well on his way to achieving his ultimate objectives - the total transformation of society

patterned in his definition of Indian Hindu nationalism19.

CONCLUSION

Much of Maududi and Golwalkars' s views on community identification were born out of

the context of pre-partition India and the scramble to promote viable alternatives,

competing 'nationalisms', to British Rule. Both Maududi and Golwalkar attempted to

promote the acceptance of their vie\vpoints (ideas) particularly within their religious

communities. Both were deeply convinced that their viewpoints should be the accepted

viewpoint of their communities and worked toward that goal. Maududi' s fellow religionists

either advocated accommodation with the general Indian nationalist movement,

accommodation with the British, or a separatist ideology claiming a nation of their own.

Maududi opposed all nationalisms claiming Islam was anti-nationalism and pro-[Islamic]

Internationalism. Golwalkar's fellow religionists primarily supported accommodation with

all minority communities. Golwalkar advocated the primacy of the Hindu community over

and against all other communities. In this Golwalkar and Maududi were of one mind. For

theirs was an 'accommodation of domination' - of the Muslim community and its shariats

over non-believers (kafirs) and of the Hindu Nation and its cultural traditions and rules

over non-Hindus (mlecchas). Allegiance was demanded by both.. For Maududi, consistent

with his presuppositions regarding the sovereignty of God, that allegiance ('obedience

context') must be to Allah and the shariats above all other claimants including the nation

as a sovereign entity. He concluded that the worship of the nation as God was the natural

consequences of any form of nationalism and that this was blasphemous and idolatrous. In

that sense, that the nation should be worshipped as God, Golwalkar agreed. He claimed

that one's allegiance ('obedience context') must be to the Hindu Nation who is to be

adored as the 'Living God' in a form of 'new age' Hindu religion. All other

religiolis/cultural-linguistic/social/familial attachments must be subservient to this end. The

Muslim community, for Maududi~ was transterritorial and transcultural. It was a global

subcontinent and, by extension, the term used to designate India in Sanskrit and Hindi texts '). It implies thebelief that Hindu culture contains within itself the essence or purity of Indian idePtity. (1999:57)19 For anybody who has read, studied or experienced the extraordinary events leading up to and surroundingthe demolition of the Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya this was a painfully clear objective and terrifyingreality that the RSS and its affiliates achieved (however seemingly temporarily) among the general Hindupopulace, resulting, in this case in a communal 'hatred' and xenophobia against the Muslim community.

68

•Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chapter 3

community that was bound together by chords of common faith, common practices and

common authority. Golwalkar claimed the Hindu Nation was bound by a broad but limited

territoriality (from 'hoary ages'), bound by the geography of the subcontinent but bigger

than present day India. It was not transcultural though. This community had clear cultural

boundaries, at least externally - Hindu cultural boundaries.

Another difference between the two was that Maududi was set against the ideas of nation

and nationalism because he believed they were secular, western European concepts and

had no place in the formation or identity for the Muslim community, in India or anywhere

else in the world. Golwalkar, as did Savarkar before him, willingly adopted these modern

western formulations in an attempt to construct the Hindu Nation and justify its primacy in

all things national.

Ideas about religion and the society/state are founded on pre-suppositions. The purpose for

these opening chapters is to lay bare some of those presuppositions so that we may be able

to more fully appreciate what were their broader consequences. The first chapter provided

the overall context out of which Maududi and Golwalkar lived and developed their ideas.

The second chapter looked at the question of identity in terms of the individual - Who am I

[as a Muslim/Hindu]? - as well as the individuals place in the process of the transformation

of society. This third chapter has focused on the broader questions of identity - Who are

we [as a community]? And, who is not 'we', that is, those 'threatening others'? As we

considered Maududi'sand Golwalkar's answers to these questions we are once again faced

with the convergence/divergence factors that we came across in the previous chapter. They

were both concerned with the need to define the boundaries that set apart their respective

communities from those who were not included. These boundaries then became division

factors, not only in terms of 'us against them' but more especially as 'us over them'. They

both sought to identify 'allegiance' factors that bound their members to one another and

defined how the community should relate to the 'others', and how the 'others' should

relate to them. Their divergence is obviously in the specific answers to these questions as

outlined above. The ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar about how the specifics of this 'inter

community' relationship is understood in the functioning of the society/state, is discussed

in the fifth chapter of the thesis.

Hindu and Muslim neighbours/communities who/which had lived side by side in reasonable peace'overnight' became enemies.

69


CHAPTER FOUR

Chapter 4

THE QUESTION OF SECULARISM - HOW DID MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR

INTERACT WITH THE IDEA OF SECULARISM AND HOW WAS IT REFLECTED

IN THEIR IDEAS ON SOCIETY?

Maududi and Golwalkar were both confronted with the question of secularism. Secularism as

the dominant philosophy in Western society was intimately related to colonial history as well

as to the newly emerging nationalist movements that were springing up all around the world. It

was therefore a critical idea with which Maududi and Golwalkar had to come to grips as they

formulated their own viewpoints in the light of the emergence of an independent India,

especially as it related to their respective communities. More importantly, with respect to this

thesis, the answers to the isspes that secularism raised are crucial in terms of how Maududi

and Golwalkar viewed the relationship between religion and society.

There were two primary issues raised by secularism, as far as Maududi and Golwalkar were

concerned. The first was the idea that there is an undercurrent of antagonism to religion (an

anti-religious bent) in its thinking seen in the need to separate religion (theistic ideas) from

mainstream society. 1 The second, following on from this, is that once religion has been

separated from society as a whole it should remain in the individual domain. Religion is to be

a purely personal and private matter. The other spheres of society must function separately

from religion and without the interference of religious ideas or elements.

I. Maududi and Secularism

A. Critique of Western, secular civilisation

Maududi outlined the growth and development of secularism in Western society. He saw

secularism as a reaction against the Christian church and the role of the church in Western

society. In particular, Maududi charts this reaction as a result of the injunctions that early

Christian scholastics placed on religion as a consequence of the rigid acceptance of Greek

70

· .z· 'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chapter 4

philosophy and science. Developing scientific findings often contradicted the views

traditionally held by the church resulting in fierce opposition. Ultimately the church lost out.

The ideas of the enlightenment coupled with modem scientific research became the bedrock of

secular thinking that became the predominant philosophy that governed Western society. The

consequence of this conflict with the church establishment was to sow seeds of distrust and

antagonism towards not only the church but to religion as a whole, ultimately leading to the

construction of a system (world-view of life and society) that was established on the ideas of

atheism and materialism - totally devoid of the theistic idea. At best religion was restricted to

the level of personal beliefs and actions of individuals while the secular idea transformed the

whole of society in its image, moving from the sphere of mere learning to include such areas

as politics, economics, public morality and the social system. In his own words, the 'new

civilization was permeated with dei-phobia and a secular non-religious mentality got rooted

into its innermost being.. .ignoring Allah (God) and life after death' (Maududi, 1991 :9, 15).

This Godless secular system was then imposed on Indian [Muslim] society. The acceptance of

their [Secular, British and European] economic system became the only way for people to live

and grow undermining the haram livelihood and slowly blurring the distinction between haram

(forbidden) and halal (permissible) from the minds of Muslims, many of whom lost their faith

in the teachings of Islam. The same occurred in the area of law. Laws were imposed that

significantly changed the social and cultural system that had been established by Islam.

When the Brutish rulers had abrogated all those Shari'ah (Islamic) laws which were in force in thecountry and implemented their own law instead, it did not merely mean that one law had been replacedby another. It meant a cancellation mark had been scratched across one system of morality and cultureand the foundations of another moral and social system had been laid ...They even shook our basic beliefthat Allah alone has the authority to make laws ...,it is the work of the legislature... ' (1991: 18)

But it was not only in such distinct spheres such as law and economics that Maududi took

issue. The social and cultural effects were equally destructive, corrupting the morals and ways

of living especially among the upper and educated middle classes who embraced these ideas.

This was evident in such things as the acceptance of co-education and the fact that women

openly danced, drank wine and acted in movies. What was worse for Maududi was that many

of these same Muslims would on the one hand claim that 'Islam was a complete system of

I This was certainly anti-religious as far as Maududi and Golwalkar were concerned. As we will see, religion forboth these men necessitated an unbroken link between religion and the rest of society. To suggest otherwise is toimply 'anti-religious' thinking.

71


life' and on the either hand they would prove by their behaviour that Islam was really only a

private affair. It was in this context, as mentioned in chapter one, that Maududi addressed

much of his polemic against hypocrisy and the 'false' or 'partial' Muslims. It was these

Muslims, according to Maududi, who had totally imbibed the secular philosophy, ideologies

and actions of the West and then tried to refashion Islam in that image. For Maududi it did not

really matter which kind of political system came out of Europe, be it Capitalism,

Communism or Fascism, their underlying secular philosophy was the same:

They all have one cultural concept in common: there mayor may not be a God, but man is under noobligation to obey Him... is in no need of guidance from Him, is not answerable for his deeds beforeHim: there is no life after this life in which man's worldly deeds will bear fruit. Man is totallyindependent and has to find his way in light of his own knowledge, experience and needs and that thepurpose of life is prosperity in the life lived in this world. (1991 :27)

In saying this Maududi was not negating the progress or innovations that modern science had

discovered. Far from it. His diatribe was against the complete unadulterated acceptance of

both the results and the underlying presuppositions that came with it and the inability of

Muslims, especially the ulama, to use the Islamic tools (itjihadl available to them 'to interpret

the principles and laws of Islam in the light of changing situations' (1992:37). As mentioned

earlier, by appealing to the right to utilise itjihad Maududi conveniently bi-passed the ulama,

the traditional interpreters of Islam, whom he felt had 'become stuck in the mud' of tradition

and their own opinions and deductions, and freed him to develop a detailed blue-print for

2 A study of itjihad is worthwhile for understanding how Maududi went about interpreting the Qur 'an and theSunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad that have been handed down) to justify his personal discourseon what Islamic society should look like. For the purposes of this thesis I will relegate it to a brief footnote. TheQur 'an and the Sunnah while conveying many truths falls short of describing in detail every situation andproblem faced by humankind in all their varied cultural and historical circumstances. In this connection CharlesAdams lists three concerns: (I) The fact that the basic sources are silent on many matters of concern to theMuslims and must be supplemented by some other principle of authority; (2) The fact that in addition to the theirclear commands the basic sources have a number of others, the exact meaning of which is doubtful and requireinterpretation; and (3) The fact that even the clear commands must be understood in the light of whateverhistorical circumstances may prevail. (1966:386). As a result itjihad could be applied. Nadar Saiedi comments onitjihad that it 'is the rational deduction ofnew decrees in accordance with the spirit of Islam [i.e. not independentof the shariah} and the precepts of reason. Mutjahid is the Muslim learned scholar who is supposed to beknowledgeable enough to engage in the act of itjihad. Itjihad was extremely important for developing the fivelegal schools between the eighth and eleventh centuries. After the eleventh century the gates of itjihad wereclosed' (1986: 180). Maududi, along with many modernists, believed that it was time to 'reopen the gates ofitjihad' claiming that the present circumstances required the need for personal judgement on matters notspecifically covered either in the original sources or by the five legal schools and for which the present ulamawere unable to effectively address. Maududi asserted the right, indeed put himself forward as a crediblecandidate, to exercise reason or one's own personal taffaquh (legal deduction) in deciding what the clearcommands of God should mean (Adams, 1966:386). [For a detailed explanation of how itjihad was to functionand the kind of person who could exercise it see Maududi, 1986:72-92.]

72


Islam in the modem context. In this respect, Adams points out, Maududi is in some ways

closer to the modernists he vehemently opposes than the conservative ulama (1966:394)3.

B. Maududi' s Islamic Response

The battle for Maududi was an ideological one. From the Islamic viewpoint the

presuppositions that underlay secularism were all wrong.

1. God as Creator, Lord and Ruler

According to Maududi, God (Allah) is either Creator, Lord and Ruler or He is not. If He is not,

then there is no need even of a private connection in which an individual should practise his

religious beliefs. However, if it is yes, then the private is out and religion must influence the

totality of life (1991 :50). For Maududi the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes'. Therefore to

relegate God to a private domain is nothing short of independence, arrogance, rebellion and

insanity.4 Besides, he continues, there is really no such thing as a private area of society. Man

is a social being and lives life in relationship to other people, be it the family or the greater

society. For Maududi the secular view of life inevitably leads to individual, class, national and

racial selfishness and division which he saw Islam transcending. If one therefore, accepts that

God is Creator, Lord and Ruler, then one cannot accept either these divisions or the anti

religion/non-religion or irreligiousness inherent in the idea of secularism. The great evil of

secularism, states Maududi, is that to accept it, is to accept the overlordship of something

other than Allah (1991:69).

2. The Sovereignty of God

Because God is Sovereign the Qur 'an demands that humankind acknowledge that sovereignty

in all areas of life whether it be moral, social, economic, cultural or political. Maududi' s point

here, comments Adams, is that 'to mark out certain areas of life as belonging to God and

others to Caesar would be to deny divine sovereignty over the whole. As he [Maududi] said at

3 For a further comparison on Maududi's relationship with the conservative ulama and the modernists see Adams,1966:384-388,394-397.4 And is liable to the charge of being guilty ofkafr - conducting ones life in ways other than that prescribed inIslam or imitating the ways of other people (see Maududi, 1997:93-94; also comments in chapter two of thisthesis).

73


one point: "The shari iah is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order

nothing superfluous and nothing lacking...his ultimate objective must be transfonnation of the

social order. The overarching concern is the clear implication of his notion of divine

sovereignty'" (1966:388). It impacts not only the total life of individuals but of society as a

whole. Therefore the implementation of God's sovereignty in the affairs of humankind must

be total. No person, or system of philosophy, therefore, has the right to claim sovereignty to

make decisions or impose laws or structures in society or even to answer the questions of the

existence of life.

Hence it is neither for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence nor to present the limits in ourworldly authority, nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right vests only in Godwho created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided all material provisions forour use. The principle of the Unity of God altogether negates the concept of the legal and politicalsovereignty of human beings, individually or collectively. Nothing can claim sovereignty be it a humanbeing, a class, or a group of people, [or a philosophy of life constructed by man such as secularism] oreven the human race as a whole. God alone is sovereign and His commandments are the law of Islam.(Maududi quoted in Choueiri, 1997:111)

There was no such thing as half-hearted belief and practice for Muslims as far as Maududi was

concerned. Islam's claim was over all of life, because God's sovereignty stretches over all of

life. A response of a Muslim must be one of complete obedience and submission to that claim.

This was not simply Maududi's opinion, but Allah's commandment to be obeyed as Sovereign

of the Universe.

In this Maududi also had problems with secular democracy because Western secular

democracy has as its foundation the concept of the 'sovereignty of the people'. In this system

absolute powers of legislation and determination of values and of the nonns of behaviour rest

in the hands of the people, and therefore, the right to make laws falls also in their rightful

preview. Maududi repudiated this, stating that this is the very antithesis of Islam as it

challenges the very core Islamic understanding that God alone is sovereign and is the One who

claims not only spiritual but also legal and political authority.

3. The Status of Man

Maududi states that the major mistake which secular philosophies have made in relation to

ethics and moral values is that their starting point is fundamentally wrong. The question is not

'what is the criterion of right and wrong for the purposes of human conduct and what is the

74


good for the realization of which man should direct his efforts?'(which comes much later) but

rather, 'what is the status and position of man in the universe?' (l996c: 26). Humankind's

status can be summed up in two main words, that of 'abd (God's servant and slave) and

khilafat-ul-AUah or khilafatu 'Uah fi'l-arz (Allah's deputy and vicegerent on earth). The

implications for this are profound. If all of humankind are the slaves of God, then all things,

including humankind belong to God and have no rights, except that of obedience to their

master - Allah. Humankind are not the masters, but rather the agents or deputies of God,

limited in power and authority. It follows that as vicegerents the only moral course open is to

fulfil what has been assigned to them.

The code of conduct is not to be formulated by man, he has to take it from God and follow it. The testset by God is not confined to anyone aspect of life or to any particular branch of human activity butextends to all aspects oflife and all spheres ofaction enlarges the full field ofmorality and makes it coextensive with life. (l996c: 32 - italics mine).

Because humans are but mere servants and agents of Allah it is incumbent on humanity to seek

the permeation of all of life with God-fullness (taqwa - God-consciousness, see Ahmad,

1991 :488) not Godlessness. It is diametrically opposite to the secular ideal. There is no

separation of religion and society. Religion (Islam) must necessarily transform society in its

image and not vice versa.

4. The idea of deen or the Islamic holistic approach to life

In Maududi' s six volume commentary on the Qur 'an, Tajhim al Qur 'an, he painstakingly

'explicates and interprets' the verses of the Qur 'an that have political and legal implications.

In doing so he sought to clarify for Muslims what Allah's guidance was in all the fields of life

be it constitutional, social, civil, criminal, commercial or international law (Ahmad,

1991 :464). Fundamentally Maududi was saying that Islam is not only competent to address

life issues but it is the final arbiter as to how life should be lived in all its varied and

multifaceted aspects. The core concept, Ahmad comments, on which Maududi< built his

movement (the Jamaat-I-Islami) for the total transformation of society was iqamat-i-deen,

literally 'the establishment of religion, or the complete subordination of civil society and the

state under the divine law as revealed in the Qur 'an and practised by the Prophet. The way of

life (al-Deen) in Islam is not a private affair. Neither can al-Deen be limited to a few sets of

75


beliefs and rituals to be performed or adhered t05• At one point in his commentary, Maududi

translates the word deen as law and then writes,

This use of the word categorically refutes the view of those who believe that a prophet's message isprincipally aimed at ensuring worship of the one true God, adherence to a set of beliefs, observance of afew rituals. This also refutes the views of those who think that deen has nothing to do with culture,politics, economics, legal, judicial, and other matters pertaining to this world. (in Ahmad, 1991 :487)

In other words, Maududi was passionately convinced that the correct Islamic approach to life

was a holistic one. Because it is a system and not merely a sum of the parts, the elements that

make up Islam cannot be separated from one another. A true Muslim is one whq actively seeks

to apply these truths to their lives individually and corporately. For Maududi and his fellow

Muslim fundamentalists, this is ultimately where the conflict is centred between Islam and

secularism. As one well-known scholar of Islamic fundamentalism has so incisively stated:

'At a latent level what the fundamentalists have grasped is the holistic challenge of

nationalism [i.e. with secularism as its philosophical basis] to the holistic claims of Islam'

(Lawrence, 1989:200). It is a battle between competing holistic world-views that brook no

rivals.

The idea that Islam encompasses every sphere of society is not original to Maududi, nor that

there should be no separation of religion and the state. However what Maududi did, perhaps

more than any other Muslim thinker, was to 'offer a set of clear and well-argued definitions of

key Islamic concepts within a coherently conceived framework and then to build a systematic

theory of Islamic society and the Islamic state on the basis of these concepts' (Ahmad,

1991 :487). What also set Maududi apart from others was his ability to authoritatively and

passionately articulate his thinking on Islamism in all its varied aspects.

It is not surprising then, given Maududi's ideas on the Islamic holistic approach to life, that

once established in Pakistan, he actively sought to speak to and influence all aspects of

Pakistan life. He was instrumental in pushing forward the idea that the new constitution of

Pakistan (following partition) should be an Islamic one and not one based on secular ideas. He

wrote,

5 See also Lawrence, 1989:215 for more general comments on the Islamic fundamentalist refusal to separate theprivate/public aspects of society.

76


If, now, after all these precious sacrifices [the suffering of partition] we fail to achieve the real andultimate objective of making Islam a practical, social, political and constitutional reality- a live force tofashion all facets of our life, our entire struggle and all our sacrifices become futile and meaningless.Indeed, if instead of an Islamic, a secular and Godless constitution was to be introduced, and if insteadof the Islamic Shari 'ah, the British Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes had to be enforced, what wasthe sense in all this struggle for a separate homeland? We could have them without that (1986:43).

Likewise, it is not surprising that once established in Pakistan society, the organisation that

Maududi founded, the lamaat-i-Islami, sponsored a large array of 'daughter' organisations that

became involved in many different aspects of society, seeking to influence those areas from

their understanding of what the correct Islamic perspective was. The Jamaat-i-Islami

sponsored trade unions, labour and student organisations; professional organisations of

doctors, engineers, teachers, accountants, journalists, and writers who had their own

independent memberships not included in the numbers of those considered officially a part of

the parent organisation (Ahmad, 1991 :492). Of these the student body, the Islami Jamiat-i

Talaba (UT), was the most important and became a vital source of recruiting students,

controlling educational institutions and organising public protests.6

II. Golwalkar and Secularism

A. A Critique of Western Secularism

Golwalkar addressed Western secularism fairly circumspectly. It mostly took the form of

contrast between the traditional Hindu (Indian) approach to religion and culture and the ideas

that secularism bred. The most direct reference to 'Western' secularism was in Bunch of

Thoughts, where he addressed the accusation that the concept of Hindu Rashtra was against

'secularism' (1996:1620). He comments that the notion of 'secularism' developed in the West

and that it had no relevance to India. He saw secularism as the outcome of conflict between

European kings and the Church, with the Pope as the pinnacle of authority. The successful

revolt against this theocratic hegemony of the Church led to the growth of 'secular states'

versus 'theocratic states'. The latter are characterised as a religious state intolerant of all other

faiths. According to Golwalkar ther~ had never been a time in the history of [Hindu] India

where such intolerance had taken place.

77


Another significant conunent that Golwalkar made in relation to religion and the West is that

culture has been separated from religion in Western Christian countries. Religion in these

countries has been relegated [by secularism] to a mere matter of form, 'a toy luxury to play

with', 'a few opinions dogmatically forced down the throats of one and all, without

consideration for individual aptitudes or the fact that the teachings therein do not accord with

modem [scientific] knowledge' (1947:27, 29). At most, religion had become nothing more

than 'an attempt to establish a relationship between the individual and God, for the spiritual

benefit of the former.' The natural consequence for this was that religion had no place in the

realm of politics and religion could be clearly distinguishable from the prevailing culture.

Further, in these Western nations it was culture and not religion that dominated society and

was most important. Christianity, according to Golwalkar had made no major inroads into

moulding the minds [world-view?] of the people but was merely an ornament worn for

decoration and show. As a result, even in India, there was an inclination to affirm that religion

is an individual issue and has no place in public and political life. Originating from the

Christian West ('who have...no religion worth its name', 1947:29) these ideas promoted the

thinking that religion is merely concerned with matters that are 'other-worldly, and should, so

say the sceptics (secularists), have no place in 'this-worldly' affairs. Religion is therefore,

according to those who hold this view, an issue to be solved by each person in his\her own

private individual way.

Hansen further points out that Golwalkar asserted that the materialistic (secular) West had

failed to provide happiness to people because it unduly stressed [to the exclusion of other

concerns] strife, conflict, competition, and individual enjoyment and hedonism (1999:81).

B. Hindu Religion, Culture and History versus 'Secular ideals'

This next section deals with Golwalkar's response to the ideas and implications that he

believed secularism raised. Golwalkar's response was clearly a response of contrast to

'secularism,7. Neither was 'secularism' as defined by West, a part of the continuum of Indian

6 Ahmad, 1991 :492-493. Ahmad further contends that 'the IJT has developed into the largest, and mostsuccessful student movement not only in Pakistan but in the entire Islamic world'.7 At least 'secularism' as he saw it and as described in the previous section.

78


history nor was it reflected in traditional Hindu (Indian/national) ideas of society and the

relationship that religion was to have with society.

1. Religion and Culture

Golwalkar emphatically stated that in relation to Hindusthan there is no separation between

religion and culture. The two are so closely linked as to be indistinguishable:

Where religion forms the very life-breath of a people, where it governs every action of the individual aswell as the society as a whole, where in short, it fOTIns the only incentive to all action, worldly andspiritual, it is difficult to distinguish the two factors clearly. They become one, as it were. Culture beingthe cumulative affect of age-long customs, traditions, historical and other conditions and mostparticularly of religious beliefs and their attendant philosophy), where there is such a philosophy) on theSocial mind, creating the peculiar Race spirit. .. it is plainly a result mainly of that religion andphilosophy, which controls the social life and shapes it, generation after generation, planting on the Raceconsciousness its own particular stamp (1947:27).

Religion as the 'life-breath' of society, or as the 'soul', is an all-absorbing entity that pervades

and is 'eternally woven' into culture. The two cannot be de-linked. Golwalkar continued:

With us every action in life, individual, social, or political, is a command of Religion. We make war orpeace, engage in arts and crafts, amass wealth and give it away, indeed we are born and we die - all inaccord with religious injunctions. Naturally, therefore, we are what our great Religion has madeus ... culture is but a bi-product of our all~comprehensive Religion, a part of its body and notdistinguished from it (1947:28).

In his view religion cannot be seen as a purely individual or private matter. There cannot be a

separation between religion and public life, or between religion and political life. To establish

a relationship with God, or to gain some kind of spiritual benefit from it is but a small part of

religion, not its end. It regulates society in all its functions. Indeed more than that, religion is

also the means by which the whole of society is raised 'from the material, through to the moral

to the spiritual plane' (1947:29,30) and despite the 'degenerating contact with the debased

"civilizations'" of the Muslims and the Europeans the Hindu religion has continued to evolve

in its greatness.

Golwalkar did not view society as separate segments or domains. Each part was intimately

linked with the other.

79


2. Religion as Dharma

Chapter 4

When Golwalkar speaks of religion and culture he utilises the Sanskrit words dharma and

sanskriti. In Bunch ofThoughts Golwalkar speaks of those who opposed his use of these terms

when speaking of the public and political spheres of life. 'Why do you bring religion into

politics?' they questioned. Golwalkar claimed that people said this because they had a

misunderstanding of what he meant by dharma, confusing it with what he referred to as the

Western concept of religion. He saw religion in the West as a dogmatic idea of religion and

the control of the state by the church (1996:72). For him the difference between what he

means by dharma and the Western idea of religion was diametrically opposite. For him,

dharma or spirituality as he puts it, is not a dogma, a set of rigid beliefs, but rather an

understanding of the totality of life. It is not a distinct sphere of national life such as

economics and politics, but rather 'a comprehensive vision of life that should inform and

elevate and correlate all fields of society for the fulfilment of human life in all its facets'

(1996:72). It is the glue that holds society together, the living principles that, when adhered to,

maintains society in a harmonious oneness.

Golwalkar saw the goal of secularism in primarily materialistic terms, where the energy of

human society is taken up in satisfying physical desires and to raising the standard of life

(measured in material terms). He saw this as an unfulfilled never-ending cycle that leads to

strife, competition, unhappiness etc. For Golwalkar, this is a direct result of the fruit of

secularism where people have focused on the economic and political arenas to the negation of

the roots of spirituality (dharma) that have underpinned traditional Hindu society. According

to Golwalkar it is dharma alone that is able to keep the human mind in check, and to nurture

the human soul to a place where peace and happiness are prevalent.

3. Chaturvidha Purushartha - The Complete Life-concept

In this light, Golwalkar harked back to 'the way things once were' when the complete life

concept of chaturvidha purushartha set apart the society of Hindusthan from other societies

(even to the point where other countries would bow down in veneration to the [Hindu] nation,

80


or to use Golwalkar's romanticist terminology, which 'made our name shine bright on the

horizon of the world' (1996:47).8 He described chaturvidha purushartha as 'the harmonious

blending of artha and kama with the higher values of dharma and moksha' which were

simultaneously worked out on both the individual and national/societal levels. Golwalkar

stated that this 'fourfold achievement' made up of material happiness - artha (the amassing of

wealth) and kama (the satisfaction of physical desires) as well as dharma and moksha

(enlightenment, the end of the cycle ofre-births or as Golwalkar refers to it - God Realisation)

was the basis on which society was built. It is clear from this that in Golwalkar's view there

was no way that the 'anti-religion', or irreligiousness or the bi-passing of religion in society

could hold any place in (Hindu) national society. For him it was not merely that religion was

the life-breath of society or that through it every area of society was linked and integrated - it

gave life meaning and purpose. Dharma, when understood and lived out in all aspects of life

leads society to moksha - direct communion with God Himself. As people follow dharma the

other aspects of artha and kama will follow (1996:44).

In outlining his understanding of the Hindu (national) society Golwalkar obviously felt the

freedom and authority to reinterpret traditional concepts and ideas. Similar to his reformist

ideas regarding caste (see chapter two) Golwalkar gave new definition to the meaning of

Dharma. For Golwalkar dharma had a twofold meaning. Firstly, it is the 'proper rehabilitation

of man's mind' and secondly, it meant 'the adjustment of individuals for a harmonious

corporate existence, i.e. good social order to hold people together' (1996:44-45). The former

concerns the individual, where a person's mind must learn to develop self-restraint along with

certain other qualities9. The second component relates primarily to the social level where

individuals must learn what it is to live in a complementary (harmonious) relationship with

one another. Dharma is that power which accomplishes the second component.

8 It is worth noting here that Golwalkar clearly has the comparison with Western secular society in mind and theneed for Indians (Hindus) to show once again the superiority of the Hindu way of life over and against theWestern society. He comments that this idea of chaturvidha purushartha is especially necessary because whenpeople do interact with other countries they tend to end up 'wallowing in physical desires' to a greater level thanthe people living in those places do themselves (1996:47). Something for which Maududi also believed inrelation to the Muslim community and its relation to Western culture.9Golwalkar comments that these can be identified in the various Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gila andrefers to these, without going into detail, as being the 'five yamas for the body and the five niyamas for the mind'(1996:45).

81


A combination of these two [components] ...shows that the establishment of dharma means the building

of an organised social life wherein each individual has realised his oneness with other is society and is

imbued with a spirit of sacrifice to make others' material life richer and happier, and develops spiritual

strength which leads to realisation of the ultimate Truth (1996:45).

The private and public spheres of life merge here, once again countering the idea that society,

in the secular sense, should be divided clearly into the private/public and secular/religious

domains. This 'blending', to use a Golwalkar expression, of the individual with the wider

society can also be looked at from another side. Just as society should be an integrated whole,

where each sphere of society is linked to each other through dharma so each individual should

be linked into and blended with the whole. He refers to the individual as that which IS

'impermanent' or transient (adhruvam) and the nation or national life as that which is

'permanent' (dhruvam -1996:45, 118). The impermanent comes and goes but the permanent

remains. The ideal for Golwalkar is where the 'impermanent' individual is transformed (by the

personal application of dharma) as a means to attain the permanent ~ the social good or

strengthening of the nation (see Chapter 2 for a further description of this building and

revitalising of the 'ideal Hindu man'). The permanent, or the nation, takes precedence over the

individual. Where the impermanent, be it the individual in society, or politics as a part of

society, comes in the way of or weakens the permanent then it must be given up. 'Hindu

society whole and integrated', continued Golwalkar, 'should forever be the single point of

devotion' for all Hindus. Nothing should come in the way of maintaining and strengthening

that united integration whether it is caste, sect, language, province or [political] party

(1996:118).

4. Secularism as understood in the Indian Context

When the constitution of India was being formulated in the year or so after partition (1947

1949) there was a great debate as to whether the word 'secular' should be included in the final

written draft or no1. l0 The final conclusion was that though the word 'secular' was not to be

insertedll it was understood, that, i~ the Indian context, 'secular' did not mean 'anti-religion'

or 'irreligion' but rather 'multi-religious' where 'there is equal respect of all religions' and

10 Full a fuller discussion on the debate with reference to the input of key leaders and the Constituent Assemblysee my unpublished paper, 'In what understanding of pluralism was the Constitution of India written?' (l999b).11 It was later added, together with the word 'socialist' in the Preamble, in the 44 th Amendment in 1976.

82


'toleration' - where all religions are to be treated equally and without government bias or

partiality. So, Golwalkar comments, if the Indian understanding of secularism is not anti

religion or where religion is not divorced from everyday life, and where every religion has the

opportunity to grow and where one religion is 'restrained from pouncing upon another' then

secularism is one with the spirit of Hindu Rashtra (1996: 163). 'In this country', Golwalkar

continued, 'the state was never tagged on to any particular faith. Relegating men of non-Hindu

faiths to second-class citizenship or levying of "Jezia" on them was unknown. All were

absolutely equal in the eyes of the law. Never did the king prostitute the state apparatus to

impose his personal religious dogmas' (Ibid). Apart from this negative aspect, the 'all

comprehensive' view of life embedded in the Hindu ruler made him respect and protect those

from all religious persuasions. In this respective, Golwalkar concludes, the Hindu ('our')

concept of the 'state' has always been 'secular'. For him this went far beyond the Western

concept of tolerance. All faiths are not merely 'tolerated' in the Hindu tradition but are

considered sacred (1996:537). One of the problems, however, that Golwalkar had with

secularism in post-independent India was that rather than being impartial to all religions it had

come to mean 'anti-Hindu' in practice where partiality had been exercised by the state in

relation to the minority religions as against the Hindu community.

Likewise, Golwalkar was against equating secularism with nationalism. 'Nation' refers to the

whole, integrated 'living' entity, and secularism is merely but one element of one part,

statecraft. For him it was wrong to lift one 'limb' such as 'secularism' to the level of the whole

body the 'Nation' (1996:162). It reveals a basic lack of understanding of the important

difference between the 'nation' and the 'state' (see next chapter).

5. 'Hindu Secular Tolerance' - Emotional Integration and Cultural Assimilation

Golwalkar's notion of tolerance is a very important aspect of his acceptance of the secular idea

in India. However, 'tolerance' means different things to different people and Golwalkar is no

exception. The association of secularism with nationhood is key to his understanding of

tolerance. 'Nation', as we recall from the discussion in chapter three is defined within the

constraints of the five 'unities'. Those who fall within these boundaries laid out by Golwalkar

are considered part of the 'nation', those who don't come under a different and clearly lower

83


or lesser category. An interesting note here, is that though he states above that non-Hindus

were never forced into a place of 'second-class citizenship', in his earlier polemic We he

claims they have no rights to citizenship (see Golwalkar, 1947:56). So 'secularism' or

'tolerance' in the context of the 'nation' is when non-Hindus (otherwise referred to as

'minorities') are tolerated or given freedom provided they accept their place in the hierarchical

structure of society and where the Hindu tradition remains firmly ensconced on top. The

expected 'tolerance' on the part of the non-Hindus is to 'forget' Moghul rule and the foreign

elements associated with their faiths and 'return' to their roots (as they were of the same race

as the Hindu people and whose ancestors were originally Hindu in faith, custom and practice)

and to develop a feeling of devotion to the 'motherland', the Hindu Nation. The need of the

hour for Golwalkar was for non-Hindus to accept a form of secularism that resulted in

'emotional integration and cultural assimilation' (Kohli, 1993:78-87). Outwardly, not only in

form, but also in the functioning of each sphere of society, Hindu norms, values and traditions

should be embraced12. Religious freedom and respect for non-Hindu faiths is limited to

personal beliefs in the privacy of one's home. Contradicting his own understanding of

religion, non-Hindus are told to treat religion as 'just 0ne portion of the individual's life... [the

private] ... for the rest that individual must be one with the national current' (Kohli, 1993 :81 13).

So Golwalkar could speak of the minority communities in the terms 'Hindu Muslims' and

'Hindu Christians' (Kohli, 1993:83; Elst, 2001b: 480; Gold, 1991:567). In a broader

discussion on the various levels of dharma that Golwalkar outlined (1. the national level

(rashtra), 2. social (samaja), 3. lineage (kula) and 4. the individual (vyakti)) Madan made the

following comments.

The arrangement is hierarchical, so that the lowest, individual level is subordinated to the others, andrashtra dhanna, or 'love of the motherland' encompasses the others, kula dharma embodies the value offraternity and sarna) dhanna that of common culture (heritage, history, ideals and aspirations). The firstthree levels, and the values typifying them, constitute the national culture, and are indeed 'the bedrockof national integration'.

One must conform to them in order to belong to the nation. Freedom of choice is available only at thecomprehensively circumscribed level. The public arena is homogenized, and pluralism is allowed tooperate in the private domain of personal faith and worship. Only in this limited sense are Golwalkar'sexhortations that Hindus must be tolerant about religions other than their own to be understood. In 1971,he said: 'The Hindu is born secular. He accepts the truth that there are different paths to GodRealisation'. (Madan, 1999:224; cpo Golwalkar, 1996:130-132).

12 And so Golwalkar could say that he saw no reason why Muslims and Christians should not revere true nationalheroes such as Rama and Krishna regardless of whether one considers them to be the manifestation of God or not.(Golwalkar, 1996:417; Kohli, 1993:80,81,83,87,107).

84


6. The Holistic Approach of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

Chapter 4

Reference to the words 'religious' or 'political' are typically and deliberately left out of

descriptions the RSS gives of itself. However, we have already noted that for Golwalkar

religion or dharma is intrinsically linked with all areas of society, that there is no separation of

religion from society. Secondly, though the word politics is missing it does not mean that the

RSS cannot be involved in that sphere of society either. For politics is as much a part of

society and the wider culture as any segment. More than anything the RSS does not want to

limit itself to one or a few parts of society, but rather it wants to influence and infiltrate all

parts with a goal of strengthening the cause of the Hindu Nation, thus Hindu Nationalism, over

and against all other communities. Describing itself in cultural terms is equally useful, for

culture, like religion involves every area of society. Kohli says that:

Golwalkar claimed that the RSS was a socio-cultural organisation .. .In his view, culture was notconfined only to the realm of music, art, dance etc ... According to him, our culture was the manifestationof a collective mind and ethos of the people of Hindustan. So, it included politics and economics andalso other mechanisms, checks and balances, values, norms for progressive steering of society(1993:93).

Dr. Hedgewar established the RSS as a socia-cultural organisation for the purpose of

organising and revitalising the Hindu community in India. He had no intention of it becoming

involved in the political arena of society. Golwalkar continued this approach but following his

arrest, imprisomnent and the banning of the RSS in the aftermath of the assassination of

Mahatma Gandhi this significantly changed. Though Golwalkar had envisioned the RSS as an

organisation for the uplift of the Hindu community in every area of society, it was now (post

1949) time to expand it more strategically. 'The Sangh...has never entertained the idea of

building an organisation as a distinct and separate unit within society. Right from its inception

the Sangh has clearly marked out as its goal the moulding of the whole of society, not merely

anyone part of it, into an organised activity' (1996:399; also p520). Golwalkar was

responsible more than anyone else for the expansion of the RSS into all domains of society

through the establishment of new organisations who would focus on a particular part\sphere of

society but who would find their leadership, ideology and inspiration from the RSS and who

together form what they themselves have called the Sangh Parivar (the family of the Sangh -

13 Compare Golwalkar in Spotlights, Sahitya Sindu Prakashan: Bangalore, 1974: 15.85

•• ,' , 1 ~


RSS). These included such organisations as the Jana Sangh14 and the Bharatiya Janata Party

(BJP) in politics, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in to the overtly religious realm, the

Vidyarthi Parishad among students and the Mazdoor Sangh in the trade union movement

now the second largest in India (see for instance Andersen and Damle, 1987: 108-156;

Jaffrelot, 1999:61,64,67; Kohli, 1993:93; also Appendix 1).

CONCLUSION

Secularism has had a profound impact on the nations of the world and none more so that India.

It certainly provided one of the major challenges ideologically to both Maududi and to

Golwalkar. Fundamentally Maududi and Golwalkar were united in their antagonism towards

secularism on the dual issues that religion should be separated from public society and the

underlying negative stance towards the idea of God and religion.

For both men, religion and God (however they understood God to be) were essentially

involved with society. What was needed was more 'God-consciousness' not less of it, or none

of it. The difference was obviously on the basis for which they asserted this position. For

Maududi it clearly came out of his understanding of the'Sovereignty of Allah' over the whole

of life and for Golwalkar the fact that Hindu religion!dharma was the life force, the glue, that

guided and held the whole of the Hindu Nation together. Likewise they both opposed the idea

that religion could be restricted to the private domain. Individuals are linked to the rest of

society and find their purpose/their salvation when they live out their religion in connection/in

relationship to the wider community and society. Anything else lays people open to the charge

of hypocrisy. Religion for both Maududi and Golwalkar was all-encompassing.

According to Maududi if God was truly Sovereign then He has the right to speak into every

area of society and He does so through the Qur 'an and the Sunnah. Golwalkar believed the

same thing but took as his basis the values and ideals held in the Hindu tradition. Maududi and

Golwalkar analysed Western secular society and concluded that the fruit of secularism is

selfishness, division and rivalry in the lives of individuals and nations. They were also both

14 For an extensive study into the origins and development of the lana Sangh see Craig Baxter (1971) lanaSangh, Oxford University: Bombay.

86


convinced that their world-views were the necessary remedies for these

individual/national/world problems. For Maududi that meant that the world must tum to the

unity of Islam under God's overlordship. For Golwalkar the answer lay in the developing of

inner restraint (character), and the discovery of the unifying Ultimate Reality that pervades all

of creation. Maududi' s vision was to bring all of society under the sovereignty of God - it

required obedience to the dictates of Allah. Golwalkar's vision was to see the harmonious

working of society that would lead to God-realisation - it required obedience to the ideals and

unity of the Hindu Nation.

While Maududi and Golwalkar rej ected the values and premises inherent in the secular world

view they were not averse to utilising modem ideas and advances and to include them or

reinterpret them into their present contexts (e.g. modem scientific discoveries for Maududi and

modem ideas of the 'nation' for Golwalkar). Because they both had a comprehensive view of

religion in relation to society it was natural that the organisations that they led would seek to

infiltrate and convert every part of society to their world-view. Both the Jamaat-i-Islami and

the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh started offshoot organisations that focused on reaching

particular segments of society, but which held to their ideological premises and who looked

back to them for accountability and inspiration.

One element that was unique to Golwalkar was the way he interacted with the idea of

'tolerance' that developed in post-independence India. While accepting this idea in principle,

Golwalkar claimed 'tolerance' was always a part of Indian Hindu tradition (especially as it

pertained to the running of the state), he went on to define 'Indian secular tolerance' as

submission to and assimilation into the Hindu Nation.

Most significantly, Maududi and Golwalkar took the liberty of interpreting their own

scriptures/traditions in the way they felt best responded to the challenge of Western

secularism. Not all Muslims agreed with Maududi' s views on Islam and not all Hindus would

subscribe to Golwalkar' s understa~ding of the Hindu tradition. Finally, it comes down to

whether they are successful in being able to convince their fellow religionists that their

interpretation is the right one and that enough of their fellow religionists live it out in society

to effect societal and world change.

87


The next chapter takes us on from 'secularism' to the 'state'. If religion cannot be separated

from the rest of society, including the state, how then does religion interface with the state and

especially the state's relationship to any minority communities within its boundaries?

88


CHAPTER FIVE

RELIGION AND THE STATE - WHAT RELATIONSHIP OR INTE.RACTION

BETWEEN RELGION AND THE STATE DO MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR

ENVISAGE?

The previous chapters have provided the background and basis for the discussion for this last

chapter. The personaVsocio-historical-politicaVreligiolis context, the answers to the questions

of individual and community identity and the response to the challenge of secularism

ultimately culminate in the question relating to the relationship between religion and the state.

In the present context, 'state', means political authority, the way society as a whole is

governed, and through whom and how authority is to be exercised ~ especially in relationship

to decision making and the religious minority communities of this society. Both religion and

the state have to do with the subject of power. The power to influence, the power to enforce,

the power to coerce, the power to control, the power to maintain order and uniformity, the

power to defend against enemies (perceived or real). Maududi and Golwalkar both sought to

provide ideological frameworks for their respective communities to pursue a 'right'

understanding of the relationship between these two power-centres, religion and the state. The

goal for this chapter is to outline what those ideas were for Maududi and Golwalkar.

I. MAUDUDI - Religion and the State

A. Basic Principles for Maududi's Political Theory of Islam (Islam and the State)

1. Din - Islam, as Religion, is a Complete System of Life, Universal and All-embracing,

therefore, an Islamic State must also be Universal and All-embracing

The essence of this chapter has to do with the practical outworking of the ideas of Maududi

outlined in the previous chapter. In Nasr's words: 'Mawdudi... asserted that Islam recognized

no boundaries between the spiritual and the mundane, between faith and politics: "The chief

characteristic of Islam is that it makes no distinction between spiritual and secular life."

Mawdudi consistently defended the principle of Islam's role in political life as both

89


fundamental and logical' (1996:80). For Maududi Islam as a religion could not be limited

simply to spiritual matters l.

The key Islamic concept that Maududi used to express this holistic idea of Islamic religion is

din. Mumtaz Ahmad outlines the way Maududi came to this conclusion:

Through a systematic treatment of such key Islamic terms as Allah, rab (Lord), malik (master), 'ibada(worship), deen (way of life), and shahada (to bear witness), Maududi demonstrated the rational andlogical interdependence of Islam to morality, law and political theory. The key Qur'anic concept thatMaududi used to advance the idea of Islam as a complete system and way of life is deen. Throughout hiscommentary on the Qur'an, Maududi keeps coming back to this holistic and primarily political meaningof the word deen. (Mumtaz Ahmad, 1991:487)

Din is most easily translated into English as 'religion'. But 'religion' must be filled with

Maududi's understanding of the word and not the more familiar idea that it relates only to

what is typically considered as spiritual beliefs or practices. Along with din, Maududi utilises

another key Qur'anic concept called iqama al-deen (the establishment of deen)2. It is not

sufficient to merely assent to this understanding of din it is incumbent on all Muslims to do

everything in their power to establish a society based on Islamic beliefs, practices and

principles. Mumtaz Ahmad comments regarding this term that it is this very concept that

makes up the raison d'etre for the Jamaat-I-Islami (the organisation Maududi founded) and

provides the doctrinal and theological justification for the political/ideological struggle of the

Jamaat in Pakistan (1991 :487).

More importantly Maududi believed that din could not be translated into practice unless there

is a state to enforce it (1986: 164). Herein, for Maududi, lies the necessity for the establishment

of an Islamic State. In uncompromising terms, and through a serious exegesis of two key

Qur'anic verses 3 Maududi explains the rationale for the Islamic State:

[ Which was probably his principal grievance against the ulama, the traditional Muslim religious lead~rs. He wasunhappy with them because they not only sought to fight for independence from the British with the IndianNational Congress (see chapter one) but that they consistently interpreted the Islamic faith in primarily spiritualterms - focussing on the main beliefs and practices (five pillars - such as salat (prayers), zakat (tithe to poor) ofIslam. Maududi's interpretation of Islamic religion in strongly political terms is a key difference between himselfand the ulama.2 Mumtaz Ahmad, 1991 :487.3 These concepts are presented in the following verses of the Qur'an: "The adulterer and the adulteress, scourgeye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to thedin of (i.e., way of life prescribed by) Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day" (24:2). And, 'Say: 0 myLord! Let me try by the Gate of Truth and honour; and likewise my exit be by the gate of truth and Honour; Andgrant me from Thy presence a ruling authority to add to me.' (17:80)

90


Here [in this verse] the criminal law of Islam has been called Din-Allah i.e." the religion of God. Itmeans that religion does not merely mean prayers, and fasting and Hajj and Zakat, it also includes thelaw of the land and the institutions of the State. If we want to establish the religion of God, theobjectives will not be achieved by merely establishing the institutions of Saum (fast) and Salat (prayer).We shall have to establish side by side with them the Divine Law and make the Shari 'ah the law of theland. If the latter is not established, then even if the institution of Salat etc., is in force, it will not amountto establishment of din. It will only be partial enforcement of it and not a total one. And if instead ofGod-given laws some other laws are adopted, it means nothing short of rejection of din .

. .. either grant power to me or grant me the assistance of any ruling authority, or state, so that I maywith the force and resources of the coercive power of the State establish virtue, eradicate evil, put an endto conuption, vulgarity and sin, set right disruption which has spread throughout social life andadminister justice according to Thy revealed law. (1986: 164-165).

In a section entitled 'Islamic State is Universal and All-embracing' Maududi outlines the role

the state should have in society (1986: 146). The salient points are as follows: as Islam is

universal and all-embracing so the Islamic State must also be universal and all-embracing in

nature. The state cannot be restricted in the breadth of its activities. It must be involved in

every sphere of human life. Not only that but it actively seeks to mould every aspect of that

life into the image of Divine Law with its moral norms and programmes of social reform. In

this kind of state no individual can regard any part of their life as personal or private. Adams

refers to Maududi' s concept of the Islamic state as 'an all-powerful, monolithic state,

upholding a definite religious ideology and using the full weight of police and judicial power

to ensure all aspects of life will reflect the character of its Islamic ideology' (Adams,

1966:390)

Maududi recognised that this sounded highly autocratic and controlling, and threatening. But

he saw it differently.

Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the fascist and Communiststates. But you will find later on that, despite the all-inclusiveness, it is vastly different from the totalitarianand authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship init. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved. (1986: 146)

Maududi could say this on two accotmts. On the one hand, because He believed that since this

state was ordained by God it must be the best and His commands are always just and

benevolent (Adams, 1966:390). On the other it reveals once again Maududi's propensity to

believe and expect a utopian ideal. He was convinced that when all necessary factors were

present, the state would ftmction with selfless power and little internal disorder, under

virtually tmanimous assent and consent by the whole community to the state using whatever

means it saw fit to enforce Islamic Law/ideals even into their personal lives. According to

91

-i/ •.. , 'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chapter 5

Maududi, this is not authoritarian because people will joyfully accept, indeed, want, this kind

of •state interference'. Maududi even goes so far as to call this the ideal democratic society.

In a polity in which there were no grievances and both the government and the citizenry abided by thesame infallible and inviolable divine law, there would be no problems with democratic rights andprocedures. The question of democracy would not arise .. .If the populace did not feel itself oppressed, itwould not dream of democracy. The Islamic State was based on the society envisioned by the din. Theideals of the din would not only cure Muslim society of these maladies that produced cleavages in othersocieties, it would also distribute resources and power equitably. It would produce a society that wouldmake both government fiats and individual rights unnecessary (Nasr, 1986:85-86).4

Though din is not exclusively 'spiritual or religious' in nature it certainly includes that

cOlU1otation and therefore the role of the state must necessarily include the mandate to enforce

and ensure the establishment of Islamic beliefs and practices: to uphold and promote those

virtues and eradicate those evils and vices5 enunciated in the Qur 'an and the Sunnah

(1986:263). With the Prophet Muhammad as his prime example, Maududi saw this state as an

institution whose prime purpose was to set up the rule of God on earth, to implement in

entirety the entire Islamic system of life revealed as the Shari 'ah, and to make sure that

obedience to it is followed through by all its citizens (Maududi, 1991: 102-103).

2. Power, Politics and Jihad

Maududi's thinking evolved over the years. Certainly, in the early establishment of the

Jamaat-I-Islami during the late 1930s and the following years Maududi's rhetoric focused on

the hmer rejuvenation of Muslim society through individual renewal. However, with the

reality of partition and his subsequent involvement in Pakistan political life he became

increasingly convinced that in order for the Islamic order he envisioned to become a reality it

was imperative that all centres of power would need to be controlled by the appropriate (i.e.

ideologically correct, Islamically pious) people. Only political power could guarantee the

preservation and implementation of Islamic religious nonns and values. Anything less than the

capture of political power would render the idea of a truly Islamic State a mere dream or ideal.

Regarding this, Charles Adams (1966:389) comments that Maududi held 'the belief that

4 An interesting corollary to this is that Maududi sincerely believed that once Muslim society was run in this waysociety would not just run well but all its soc;ial ills (l.e. poverty) and natural problems (e.g. drought etc) woulddisappear. It is perhaps because of this that Maududi paid little attention to the present and real social needs of thedifferent sections of Pakistan society. For him what needed to be addressed was not their needs but whether theywere living out the ideal Islamic life. When they did that their social problems would be realised (see 1. Ahmed,1991: 114; R. Ahmed, 1994:699; Ahmad, 1991 :509). Needless to say, Maududi and tl-te Jamaat-I-Islami receivedlittle public support from the most needy, and the most populous living in TUral areas.5 These included adultery, drinking, gambling, obscene literature, indecent films, vulgar songs, immoral displayof beauty, promiscuous mingling of men and women and co-education.

92


societies are built, structured and controlled from the top down by the conscious manipulation

of those in power. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important for the realisation of the

Islamic ideal on earth than that the right people, holding the right ideas, should occupy the

posts of governors in society6., Adams goes on to quote Maududi directly:

A man who has devoted any thought to the matter knows that in human affairs the most important thingis, 'who holds the bridle reins?' Human society is like a carriage. Just as the carriage goes wherever thedriver wishes, so a human civilization goes wherever the leaders desire. It is obvious that commonpeople must act according to the pattern ordained by those who possess power, who control the means offraming public opinion, who form the systems of individual and social life, who determine the standardsof morality etc. if these are in the hands of righteous people, worshippers of God, then it is inevitablethat the whole of social life be God~worshipping...None of the purposes of religion can be accomplishedso long as control of affairs is in the hands of kafirs [unbelievers]. (in Adams, 1966:389; see alsoMaududi, 1993b:77)

'Power', Madan writes, 'is at the very centre of Maududi 's concept of true Islamic society, and

all varieties of legitimate power are for him expressions of God's sovereignty (hakimiyya)

(1997:141).

Maududi complained that the problem with the leaders of the Muslim League, including

Muhammad Ali Jinnah ('The Father of Pakistan') was that their lives and lifestyles fell far

short of the Islamic ideal. Their political goals were likewise, not predicated on the basis that

an Islamic State would be established but rather, simply, a geographical area of land - a place

where Muslims would be a majority without fear of political domination by non-Muslims (see

Maududi, 1986:43).

The capture of political power from 'morally corrupt' individuals (Muslims) or even from

non-Muslims, or from the dominance of un-Islamic systems (i.e. secularismf, in order to

establish a true Islamic order/society was an obligatory requirement for all true Muslims

(Maududi, 1986:165; Choueiri, 1997:143). Maududi described this as requiring 'effort', or

more typically of it being a 'struggle'. The Islamic idea associated with this is jihad (struggle

in the cause of God)8. It is also through jihad that the State and its citizens will establish din in

the Islamic State.

6 This is not to say that Maududi based his ideas on a rational argument alone. He also certainly harkened back tothe example of the Prophet Muhammad in Medina, Adams, 1966:389; see also Maududi, 1991 :102-103).7 Nasr, 1996:83.8 For a fuller discussion on the meaning ofjihad by Maududi see Maududi, 1997: Chapters 28 and 29,

93


This was precisely the direction that Maududi and the Jama'at-I-Islami took in relation to

Pakistan. 'The political struggle of the Jamaat', Mumtaz Ahmed concludes, 'has been based

on the assumption that Islamic change in society will occur only when political power is

transferred into the hands of a party of God-conscious, Islamic activists, who by taking over

the state, will establish the necessary conditions for reforming society' (191 :485). Needless to

say, Maududi believed that he and the Jama'at were the appropriate ones to do this.

It is quite clear from all of the above and from Maududi's writings themselves that the Islamic

State for him was an ideological state, founded on ideological principles and laws, to be led by

men who have completely imbibed these Islamic ideological ideas (i.e. from the Divine Law

the Shari 'ah) and who seek to put this ideology into practice in their daily lives and also in

every part of their lives! This ideology of din crosses all ethnic, linguistic and racial

boundaries and is incumbent on all those who claim to be Muslims. At the same time it also

clearly demarcates those who do not belong to this ideological community. They may not hold

any leadership role in this state but they may remain (as we will soon note) as non-Muslim

citizens with rights, but without public influence or poy/er.

B.. Foundation Principles for the Islamic State - Tawheed, Rasala and Khilafat 9

1. Tawheed (The Unity of God)

With Maududi it is impossible to begin any discussion on any subject without first touching on

the Sovereignty of God. It is the ultimate bottom-line and foundation for all he has to say.

Although some of his thoughts on this subject were already outlined in chapter two, pages 32

33, and touched on in the following chapters, it is important to review this topic.

According to Maududi Tawhid is the first principle of Islamic political theory (1986:135). This

means that the One God (Allah) alone is Sovereign Creator of the universe and of all that is in

it. As Sovereign, God alone is invested with the right to command or forbid. He 'alone can

claim worship and obedience and He does not share that with anyone, in any form. Therefore

humankind is not in a position to dictate what the purpose or aim of life or society should be,

9 Elsewhere Maududi mentions three other principles that incorporate these three the third of which adds thestatement, 'The government which runs such a state will be entitled to obedience in its capacity as the politicalagency set up to enforce the laws of God.' Maududi, 1986:146.

94


or can prescribe what the limits of human authority are. Neither has anyone the right to make

these decisions apart from God alone.

This principle of the Unity and Sovereignty of God altogether dismisses the idea that human

beings have the right to legal or political sovereignty. No individual, family, class or race can

set themselves in a place above God. He alone is Ruler and His commandments are the law of

Islam, indeed are the laws intended for the whole of humankind. Therefore, the appropriate

response of human beings, individually and collectively, to Tawheed is one of complete and

utter obedience to God and His laws, 'surrendering all rights of overlordship, legislation and

exercising authority over others' (1986: 137).

2. Rasala (Prophethood)

Rasala or prophethood, is the medium by which God has made the law of God known.

According to Maududi there are two things that we have received this way. Firstly, the Qur'an,

'the book in which God has expounded His law'; and secondly, the Sunnah, which is 'the

authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book of God by the Prophet

Muhammad, through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of God' (l993b:8).

For Maududi, the broad principles on which the whole of human life should be based have

been clearly given in the Qur' an. Muhammad, as the Prophet of God, was able to establish a

model for this system of life we are to live, by 'practically implementing the law and

providing necessary details where required' (1993b: 8). The combination of these two sources

is called the Shari 'ah. 10 This is not a minor issue. Maududi clearly stated that the nature of any

legal system [in a state] essential depends on the source or sources from which it is derived

(1986:45). The One Sovereign God has given His Law through these sources alone. It follows

therefore that no law for society should be established without having its basis solidly in the

Shari 'ah.

3. Khilafat (Caliphate or Representation)

10 Basically the Shari 'ah provides the framework for constructing human affairs. It is divided into two maincategories: Ma 'rufat (virtues) and Munkarat (vices). The latter is further divided into three further categories: The

95


According to Islam, Maududi goes on, the correct place of humanity is that of the

representative of God on earth, His vicegerent. In other words, because of the powers or

authority delegated to humanity by God, humankind has been mandated to exercise that God

given authority within limits given by God. Utilising the illustration of the person who has the

responsibility to oversee an estate Maududi likens this role of humanity to an administrator

who is responsible to put in to place God's directives for human life and society (1993b: 8).

The state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a caliphate under thesovereignty of God and will have to fulfil the purpose and will of God by working on God's earth withinthe limits prescribed in accordance with His directions and injunctions (1993b: 9).

All those who are ready to fulfill the conditions of representation and the principles of

tawheed and rasala (that is, Muslims ~ those who have surrendered to Allah) I I are khilafa.

This position or responsibility is not limited to special individuals or to those who are from a

particular family, ethnic, national or linguistic background. It is bestowed on the entire

Muslim community.

Thus, according to Maududi, the Islamic state is built upon the sovereignty of God who acts as

the Law-Giver and is the de jure head of the socio-political order. Humanity as God's

vicegerents would look after the world as a kind of 'care-taker state' (Nasr, 1996:89). The

Islamic state that Maududi extrapolates, based on the above, is not one that is somehow

evolving, it is already perfect and complete and humanity's job is simply to implement and

maintain it. Things such as politics, elections and legislation play merely a secondary role in

this state (ibid). The realm or state in which these three principles of tawheed, rasala and

khilafa is described by Maududi as the 'Kingdom of God or theo-democracy'. 12 As Singh

comments, this is 'universal in scope because one God is sovereign over all. .. [and because]

the scope for Islamic polity is universal, there is space for expansion [geographically] through

Mandatory (Fard and Wajib), the Recommendatory (Matlub) and the Permissible (Mubah). For a more detailedexplanation of the Shari 'ah see Maududi, 1986:40-70, 72-92.11 In another place Maududi defines those who qualify for khilafa or vicegerency as those 'who accept and admitGod's absolute sovereignty over themselves and adopt the divine code, conveyed through the prophet as the lawabove a111aws ... ' (Quoted in Singh, 2000: 12). Singh also comments that this belief in humankind's vicegerencyis rooted in the Qur'anic and Hadith accounts of Adam's creation: see for instance Surah 2:3035; 7: 11; 15:26-33(Ibid, also footnote #8).12 Maududi outlines the differences between theo-democracy (TD) and secular democracy (SC) in 1993b:10-1. TD ~ Sovereignty rests on one God; in SC ~ People are Sovereign2. TD - All believers are vicegerents of God; SC - People are sovereign3. TD - All vicegerents obey the divine laws revealed through the prophet; SC - People make their own laws4. TD - The chosen fulfill the wishes of the sovereign God on behalf of all; Government fulfils the wishes of

the people. See also Singh, 200:13.

96


the vicegerents. They are God's agents establishing knowledge of One God and securing

obedience to His laws' (2000: 12).

c. The Nature and Functions of the Islamic State

To discuss this thoroughly would require a separate thesis and others have already done so 13.

Nevertheless some brief comments are appropriate.

1. The Shari lah - The first requirement of the Islamic State is the full implementation of the

Divine Law - the Shari 'ah. Maududi was convinced that it held a complete blueprint for

the constitution of an Islamic State and the running of individual lives within it. 'Each

aspect', Adams comments, 'of the organization and functioning of the state derives from

directives of the Qur'an, the traditions of the prophet, or the example of the first four

caliphs' (1966:390).

2. The Amir or Caliph - The Leader of the Islamic State - The titular head of the Islamic

State, the amir was to be elected by the citizens of the state. These people could not either

nominate themselves for the post or engage in electioneering. Once in office the amir was to

emulate the role of the prophet in Medina and the first four caliphs. In other words the two

roles of prophet (religious leader) and king (political leader) would merge together in the one

role. The length of time and breadth of his power would only be limited by his faithfulness to

the ideology of the state (Adams, 1966:390). In Maududi's earlier thinking there would also

not be any political parties, because to have them would be to suggest that there was more than

one correct Islamic position. However, it was religious law (guided by the amir and the shura)

not the will of the people that was to decide what the truth was. After the initial years of the

formation of the State any dissent in the polity based on divine law could only be viewed as

apostasy (Nasr, 1996:91) though in theory every Muslim would have the right to their own

VIews.

3. The Shura or Legislature14- As: a kind of parliament the shura's primary function would

be as an advisory role to the executive, although they would have some role in setting forth

Another prefers to call it 'modem-day theocracy' rather than thea-democracy! (I. Ahmed, 1991: 11 0)13 For example Ishtiaq Ahmed's The Concept ofthe Islamic State in Pakistan.

97


legislation based on the practice of ijtihad (Nasr, 1996:95). Even though all Muslim citizens

would be eligible for these leadership roles as co ~vicegerents, in actual fact these were still

elitist positions to be available to those who met specific criteria ~ i.e. Muslim, pious men,

well versed in Arabic, the religious sciences as well as in modem subjects (a reference to his

antagonism towards the ulama).15

4. The Qada or Judiciary 16~ Maududi saw the judiciary as the body responsible for

administering the principles of Islamic justice set out in the Shari 'ah. Maududi was concerned

however that before the Shari 'ah could be enforced in full 'necessary economic, social and

cultural reforms based on Islamic values should be introduced...Thus before the law of

amputation of a hand for theft is put into practice, a just Islamic order should be created' (I.

Ahmed, 1991:100). This issue particularly outlines Maududi's problem. As stated earlier he

was the one who unabashedly stated that there could not be an Islamic State without and

Islamic revolution. In other words there could not be an external enforcement of Islam until

there had been internal (in the hearts and minds of individual Muslims and society) renewal

and reformation to Islam. How could the Jamaat then enforce an Islamic State when this inner

transformation had not yet taken place? (Nasr, 1996:95). Maududi's answer to this problem

was to recognise both at work. Capturing political power was essential even now, but the full

implementation of society under Islam was a gradual process that would take place over

various stages.

D. The Role of Non-Muslims or Zimmis (dhimmis)

Maududi outlined in quite some detail the position and rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic

State (Maududi, 1986:Chapter 9 and Maududi, 1993b). As already outlined above the

foundation for the Islamic State is the Islamic religion revealed through the Divine sources and

established on the Sovereignty of God. It is an ideological state. Therefore all positions of

power and influence in society must be in the hands of pious Muslims alone.

14 Maududi, 1986:221-223.15 See Nasr, 1996:95; Choueiri, 11997:115; Maududi, 1986:101,242-245 (Qualifications for rulers).16 Maududi, 1986:224-234.

98


Only Muslims should hold the rights of full citizenship in society. Non-Muslims fall into a

secondary citizenship with qualified rights. He defines this group as Zimmis: ' ... all those non

Muslims who have affirmed to remain loyal and obedient to the Islamic State wherein they

propose to live, regardless of the country they were born in' (1986:247).17 It is possible for

them to live in peace and stability within the boundaries of an Islamic State and could expect

rights18 albeit with certain restrictions. They have the rights to protection of life, property and

honour; of personal freedom; of freedom of opinion, belief and practice - within the context of

their own religious community. They may even propagate their faith, but only among non

Muslims. Ishtiaq Ahmed further states, in relation to the issue of conversion, that Maududi

believed in punishment by death for any Muslim who converts to another faith though the one

who influenced the apostate is not to be punished. Belief is not a matter of personal faith. 'It is

coequal with membership in a social order that seeks fulfillment through the state. A change of

faith therefore, is tantamount to treachery, making such a traitor a potential ally of the enemy.'

(1991:103-104).

This applies both to the one who was born into the Muslim community as well as to the one

who had originally converted from another faith. Criminal and civil laws for the state would

be the same for both Muslims and non-Muslims while issues relating to personal matters

within the non-Muslims communities would be based on their own beliefs/personal religious

laws. However, they may not hold positions of real power and influence in society, and

certainly not be allowed to be the head of state or a member of the shura. Maududi and the

Jamaat also insisted on the establishment of separate electorates 19, giving non-Muslims

17 Maududi further qualifies non-Muslims into three different types: 1. Contractees, 2.The Conquered and 3.Residents. Maududi, 1986:278ff. Nasr comments that Maududi had four main groups - male Muslims, femaleMuslims, zimmis ('protected subjects" specifically followers of those religions recognized by Islam i.e. 'Peopleof the Book' - Christians and Jews) and non-Muslims (for those who did not fit into the other three). Only thefirst two categories were accepted as citizens, with Muslim men enjoying full citizenship and women only havingpartial rights. Muslim men were divided into sub-categories - followers of din and nominal Muslims; He alsodistinguished between those who were Hanafi Sunnis from those who followed other law schools and theShi'as... 1996:9918 For a more complete discussion on human rights in Islam see Maududi, Human Rights in Islam and 'Rights ofnon-Muslims in an Islamic State', Chapter 9 jn Maududi, 1986. See also Singh, 2000: 19-20 where the authoroutlines a brief description of the sources from which Muslim authorities have decided the position and rights ofnon-Muslims - i.e. the 'Charter ofUmar' and the 'Constitution ofMecca' , where the former takes a much morerigid, anti-pluralist stand. Maududi's position was closer to the more tolerant (comparatively?) Charter ofUmar.19 Maududi explained that there was room for a separate electorate where non-Muslims could be elected to themodern idea of a Parliament or a Legislature. Their sphere of influence however' would be limited to mattersrelating to the general problems of the country or to the interests of the minorities concerned and theirparticipation would pot damage the fundamental requirements of Islam' (1986:295-296).

99


restricted political rights, while at the same time ensuring that non-Muslims will not be able to

influence the Islamic State and its Islamic ideology based on the Shari tah.20 It also helped to

crystallize Maududi's deliberate anti-pluralistic policy of communalism21• In an ideal situation

Islam was to remain clearly separated from other communities (see Chapter 3). There is a very

definite sense of 'us' and 'them' and the system of separate electorates emphasises and

maintains (protects) this policy.

For Maududi, the Islamic State as he envisioned it had the best of everything. In concluding

this section on Maududi I do want to remind my readers that the topic of this thesis is

primarily concerned with the ideas of Maududi. The reality of history is that since the direct

involvement of Maududi and the Jamaat-I-Islami in the political life of Pakistan there has been

a difference between theory and practice. Adams points out that, 'In practice he often shown

willingness to compromise with ideas and positions that are more or less contrary to his ideal

theories.' For example, the Jama'at's approval of the 1956 Constitution of Pakistan provided

for a genuine parliamentary government. (Adams, 1966:393).22 While it established din in

every part of society it also upheld hrnnan rights and honoured the individual. The basic right

after all was the right to demand an Islamic order and to live in it and not the right to differ

with the ruling authorities (Nasr, 1996:92).

He also stated that those administering the State were not to force their will on the citizens of

the state. He however, does not explain what would happen if the citizenry refused to accept

the state's position and actions. In a highly romanticised, utopian way Maududi was convinced

that there will be hannony in society and little disorder, because the purpose and desire of the

individual will be the same as that of the community, those holding executive positions the

same as the individual citizen, that is, the execution and enforcement of the Divine Law,

20 Maududi also comments, ' ...the establishment of an ideological Islamic State is the greatest guarantee for nonMuslims in Pakistan' (1986:153). See also Singh who after evaluating Maududi's thoughts on the issue feels that' ... if an Islamic State chose to adopt Maududi's version of Islamism, there does not seem any reason for theChristian minorities to feel threatened.' Though he does qualify this by saying, 'This as long as they remain alooffrom politics and do not carry their freedom beyond the delimitation of their religious institutions, personal andfamily matters.' (italics mine - 2000: 12). For a comparison with the policy of separate electorates with BritishIndia see Adams, 1966:392.21 Communalism - a policy, action or way of thinking that promotes and reinforces the separation andsegregation of different communities usually based on religious and cultural criteria. It is often used in anantagonistic sense where oppression or violence is committed between communities or from one communityagainst another. Maududi viewed it positively as a means to keep the Islamic community pure and unadulterated.

100


Shari 'ah and of din in all spheres of society. The duty of the citizen was to obey the state (i.e.

obeying the Islamic faith), to remain loyal and to work for its welfare. The Islamic State was

also democratic because in Maududi' s mind it captured all the virtues that were meant by the

term, that is, the society in which the highest moral values and the most cherished political

ideal were blended together (ibid).

II. GOLWALKAR - Religion and the State

As we consider Golwalkar's views on the relationship between religion and the state we must

remember that in his writings and discourses he uses the words 'nation', 'culture' and

'religion' quite interchangeably. One cannot talk of 'nation' without religion and culture,

'culture' without nation or religion, 'religion' without nation and culture. The Sanskrit word

Dharma is the all-embracing term that links them all together though each may have their own

separate peculiar elements.

A. The Nation versus The State: Rashtra versus Raj

In the preface to his initial treatise We or our Nationhood Defined (1947: 1-4), Golwalkar

stated that in all that follows he wants to make it quite clear that his discussion revolves

around the term 'nation' and not 'state' though they may be related. 'Nation' refers to a

cultural unit while 'state' refers to a political one. He believed that the two are clearly

distinguishable and that although he would like to write further on the topic of the 'Hindu

State' or 'as people now call it the "Indian State'" he would have to reserve that for another

discussion. This, for him, is particularly important in light of the comments he makes in We

about minority communities. These comments were apparently not to reflect any political

status they would have in a 'state' but were to reflect their inclusion or otherwise in the body

of the [Hindu] 'Nation'.

Golwalkar stands for the rejuvenation of the Nation not 'for that hap-hazard bundle of political

rights - the state' (1947:1). The focus on simply a political state and not the nation would

serve only to further the destruction of [Hindu] culture, and therefore the distinction is

important. It was in this light that he said it is vital to define the question of identity: 'who are

we?' which we considered in Chapter Three. KoWi comments that Hindu Rashtra (the Hindu

22For other comments on Maududi's willingness to compromise when faced with political realities see Nasr,

101

',-?


Nation) has actually little to do with religion or a theocratic state but rather it has to do with a

'geo-cultural' concept of nationhood (1993 :34). Here I have to disagree, at least in regards to

the comment that it had little to do with religion. I have already established that it is all

interconnected. Unless Kohli defines more specifically what is meant by religion, there is no

doubt that religion has everything to do with the Hindu Nation even if it is not the main

element of it. Dharma, is a Hindu religious ('cultural', 'national', 'Indian') term that is

intrinsically related to and encompasses the term 'nation'.

The two Sanskrit words used to define nation and state, Rashtra and Raj (or rajya) are similar

though different terms. Golwalkar (and later RSS spokesmen) use the term Raj (lit. 'rulership

of the Hindus') to primarily mean the law and order functions of the state, while Rashtra ('a

state having a Hindu character') is the more general and holistic term referring to society in all

its different spheres. The function of the state (Raj) is merely one element of society/the nation

(Rashtra) and not necessarily the most important (Embree, 1994:619,629; also Elst, 2001b:

661; Andersen and Damle, 1987:82-83).

B. Hindu Rashtra as an Organic Whole

Though alluded to in the previous chapter it is worthwhile touching on the holistic nature of

the Hindu Rashtra especially as we define where the political or state sphere fits into the

whole and how it relates with religion. Golwalkar directly and indirectly refers many times to

the concept of society (rashtra/nation) functioning as an organic whole23 (indicative of

Golwalkar's biology science background). With each part of society representing one element,

organ or limb24, in some ways distinct yet at the same time codependent and integrated with

another, bound together by dharma. Overt religious practices and beliefs are one element,

social life another, economic life another, political or state life another, and so on. What holds

1996:95; M. Ahmad, 1991:485; Choueiri,1997;113; R. Ahmed, 1994:695-696.23 See Golwalkar, 1996:xi, 25-26,45,102,118,156,514,528,530.24 Andersen and Damle write that the organic concept of society 'was a particularly persuasive argument for thepurposes of social unity and nationalism; the revivalists employed it to emphasize and to suggest the necessity ofa single political system.' In the Indianffiindu context if finds its genesis in the Rig Veda, 'the oldest Hindusacred text [which] pictures human society as evolving from the Supreme Person (Perusha) and compares thefour social divisions [brahmin (mouth), kshatriya (anns), vaishya (thighs), and shudra (feet)] to the mouth, arms,thighs, and feet of the Supreme person' (1987:72). See also Jaffrelot, 1999:21,59 - who says that Hindurevivalists attempted to use this organicist model to create a new egalitarian Hinduism in order integrate theUntouchables (shudra) into Hindu society, with a view to dissuading them from converting to another religion.Referring to Golwalkar's Bunch of Thoughts Jaffrelot further comments that the idea is that 'individuals will

102


it all together is dharma, that invisible, yet real cultural/religious overarching 'Single Reality',

'innate oneness' (1996:26) or code of life. 'The strength of Hinduism', comments Hansen, of

Golwalkar's ideas, 'and the spiritual correction offered by the Hindu mode of thought lies in

holistic thinking - the understanding that the tiniest thing, organism, or being as an integral

part of a larger whole' (1999:81). Religion therefore will impact politics, and politics will

impact religion in some way - but where both are following the dharmic way.

This organicist model employed by Golwalkar was not intended simply to describe the

relationship between different spheres of society. He also used it to describe the relationship

individuals in the Nation were to have with the whole. The idea is that as individuals merge

themselves into the Nation 'like limbs and organs of man having a single instinct and a single

guiding motivation and all of them fused together [they] can work as one corporate personality

[and] when that personality works on the lines of affection and love and not of hatred or

antagonism, it will attain the state of divinity, an avatar... ' (Golwalkar, 1996:528). There is

both a sense of attaining moksha or oneness with the Divine Reality as a community, as well

as the sense of each individual conforming to the collective unity of the Nation. As stated

earlier, this confonnity is to dharma, the external cultural forms and internal values and

traditions that Golwalkar believes have historically bound the Hindu community together.

In this sense there is a totalitarian element involved. Though apparently without coercion,

individuals are expected to voluntarily give up a sense of individuality in order to strengthen

the whole. Jaffrelot comments:

Golwalkar's ideology can be regarded as virtually totalitarian precisely because he concentrates somuch on the relationship between the individual and the nation, a relationship in which a unifonnsystem of socialisation prepares men and women to participate only in the one collective entity, thenational [Hindu] community.. .In this sense the Sangh (RSS) seeks to invade and "dominate" everysphere of national life' (1999:61)

This has implications not only in relation to an attempt at providing an egalitarian platform to

embrace all sections of the varna or caste social order but also in relation to non-Hindu

minority groups who see themselves as distinct from the majority Hindu community. If those

holding political power in the state, embrace these ideas, how will it affect the way they relate

eventually merge into a homogenous nation, in which social differences [i.e. the caste or varna system] will loseits meaning.' He believes that, in actuality, the hierarchical model remained.

103


to minority/non-Hindu communities who do not want to 'fuse themselves' into the Hindu

Nation? This question is addressed below.

c. The Function of the State - As it was, so it should be

Unlike Maududi, Golwalkar did not write or provide any kind of blueprint for the running of a

state that lay within the Hindu Nation. As we will see, although the RSS became increasingly

involved in the political arena, he himself maintained a particular disdain for things political in

nature. He never did get to write that book mentioned in the preface to We. Nevertheless,

scattered among his writings he does comment briefly on some of the issues' involving the

state usually taking the opportunity to hark back to the 'hoary' history of the Hindu

community (Nation) for appropriate keys for running the state.

The functions of the state were fairly limited. It was primarily a 'law and order' institution

whose responsibility was to protect the nation from foreign invasion and internal strife. A

common refrain for Golwalkar was that the state in modem times has taken on too much

power and influence and that it is dabbling in areas that it should not. This is specifically in

reference to the 'Welfare State' mentality that was in vogue in India at the time of his writing.

He believed that the state is not to concentrate all power within itself and should not secure

control in all spheres of individual life. He saw this as a way of enslaving individuals and

robbing them of personal initiative: 'It is well-known that power tends to make its wielder

oppressive and tyrannical. Men in authority, therefore, strive to suppress their potential

opponents through violence, thereby rendering themselves incapable of securing the peaceful

progress and welfare of the people' (1996:74). Violence and coercion, therefore, was not to be

a weapon for the state to wield authority.

In order to guarantee that this would not happen the ancient Hindu lawgivers, according to

Golwalkar (1996:74), decided it best to impose checks on those exercising power. Further,

they ordained that government power was only a means and was not to become an end in

itself. The state would only be able tp do good as long as it remained the faithful upholders of

dharma, which was the higher law. This was to be achieved in two ways:

1. It was decided that in order to 'avoid slavery and bloody revolution and provide

enduring peace and freedom in society' political power was to be kept separate from

104

~: 'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Chapter 5

economic power. Together they offered unprecedented control but separating them in this

fashion kept them independent, and mutually corrective (1996:76).

2. Both powers were to be placed under the guidance and control of the dharmic authority

in the fonn of 'selfless and disinterested persons - the sages and seers25 living in

hermitages'. These holders of the 'scepter of spiritual [and moral] authority' were

supposed to be on the alert to any injustice or wrongdoing perpetrated by these two powers

acting as 'constitutional seers' who interpreted dharma (Andersen and Damle, 1987:83).

The lives of these seers was supposed to be characterised by their 'statesmanship,

character, dedicated life, sharp intellect, compassion and concern for society' (Kohli,

1993:50).

Golwalkar analysed world history and as a result believed that the destruction and extinction

of ancient civilizations (e.g. Assyria, Rome, Greece and Egypt) was because of the over

dependence of society on the State to steer and maintain society (1996: 67-69). Likewise

where one group or individual exercises total power (i.e. political and economic) history tells

us that the outcome is loss of social stability, progress and prosperity, not to mention

tyrannical and oppressive rule (e.g. Russia, Gennany and China -1996:75).

As to whether India should be a Hindu State Golwalkar merely replied: 'The word Hindu State

is unnecessarily misinterpreted as a theocratic one which would wipe out all sects. Our present

state is in a way a Hindu state. When the vast majority of people are Hindus, the state is

demographically Hindu. It is also a secular state and all those who are now non-Hindus have

also equal rights to live here. The state does not exclude anyone who lives here from

occupying any position or honour in the state' (in Kohli,1993:39).

D. Wanted - A Unitary State

Consistent with Golwalkar's 'one nation, one country, one society, one culture' stance it is not

surprising that he also advocated that India needed to be governed through a 'single state of

the unitary type' (1996: 197). He was against the federal system that existed in India as it was

25Elsewhere Golwalkar writes of these seers in history: 'They represented the dharmasatta. The king was only anardent follower of that higher moral authority' (1996:69). Kings would come and go but the dharmasattacontinued to hold the people and the Hindu Nation together.

105


divisive and encouraged separatist feelings, negating the truth, as he saw it, of a single

nationhood. So strongly did he feel about it that Golwalkar commented: 'It must be remedied

and the Constitution amended and cleansed... ' (ibid).

The federal system recognised separate states mostly on the basis of linguistic and cultural

grounds, which was virtually anathema to Golwalkar who saw India as a homogenous

nationhood. The federal system according to Golwalkar sowed the seeds for fragmentation and

separatism in India. The conflicts that various states were then having with one another further

confirmed this view to him, and threatened, according to Golwalkar, to lead some states

towards claims for the right to secession from the political entity that India had become. The

vivisection of the 'motherland' during partition was bad enough. More than this, for

Golwalkar, it also promoted a loss of national self-consciousness and cohesion, creating a kind

of amnesia of self-forgetfulness that undermined the Hindu Nation. Golwalkar's remedy 'was

to sweep away the existence of all "autonomous" or semi-autonomous "states" within the one

state, viz., Bharat, and proclaim "One Country, One State, One Legislature, One Executive"

with no trace of fragmentation, regional, sectarian, linguistic or other types of pride being

given scope for playing havoc with our integrated harmony' (1996:218-228). This was

consistent with the view that Golwalkar advocated that there was one homogenous Hindu

culture. Recognition of a prolification of regional cultures could seriously undermine this

view.

The interesting thing about Golwalkar's views on the Unitary State is that it leans towards a

centralised administrative power structure. Apparently this was something to which he was

also opposed.

E. Politics and Political Power

Any discussion about the state inevitably leads to issues concerning politics and political

power. It certainly was an essential part of Golwalkar's discourse on the relationship between

religion and the state.

Consistent with his focus on cultural" identity and dharma Golwalkar considered politics and

the things that went with it as something that was temporary, superficial and transitory

106


(adhivuram). Political parties and kings (i.e. those in governmental authority) come and go but

society, tied together by blood and history, remains one and whole, eternal, immortal,

permanent (dhuruvam) (1996: 118). It is an important discrimination for Golwalkar. His stand

was that if the transient (politics) came in the way of the permanent (society) then the political

must be given up. In other words politics is only a means to strengthen dharma (which

included culture and religion) and the Hindu Nation (rashtra), and when it fails to do so, it

should be removed.

Questions do arise however. How does Golwalkar view political power? Can political power

be an instrument of furthering and maintaining dharma, of Hindutva, the cause for the

strengthening and establishment of the Hindu Nation?

Golwalkar had a great mistrust of political power and the role of the state. He did not believe

that political power was essential to spread dharmic ideology. Though some would point to

the rise and spread of Islam and Christianity throughout the world through the wielding of

political and military power, Golwalkar would have none of it. Political power does not solve

the problem. In fact, citing the example of Christ and his early disciples, Golwalkar claimed

that it was actually when they had no political power, but relYing simply on their faith and zeal

that the world bowed at their feet (1996:72). When their successors gained political power

corruption and degradation took place. In his view the present powerlessness of Christianity to

mould life in its image in Christian countries is a direct result of falling prey to political

power. The same was true of Islam. Political power corrupts and makes the wielder

oppressive. This can be seen in nations such as Russia and Germany [under Hitler] where the

intoxication of power has led to the slavery and dehumanising of the population the

government is supposed to serve (1996:73). 'Power', Golwalkar went on, 'brings a lot of vices

along with it. Deception, duplicity, insincerity, ulterior motives, shallowness in thinking,

partisan approach...making workers deviate from their goals, thus degenerating the whole

process' (in Kohli, 1993:64).

As mentioned earlier, political, governmental power is only a means to an end. It is only good

as long as it remains a faithful upholder of dharma and where it remains under the guidance

and control of the dharmic authority. Political power can also serve the Hindu Nation if it

107


allows mass organisations in the country which are focused on rejuvenating society from

within to remain separate from political authority and if the men who serve in it do so with

zeal and dedication (Kohli, 1993:50). Political authority is powerless to play an effective role

in rejuvenating society, its cultural values and social solidarity and cannot substantially further

ideology, or the transformation of the minds of people into the Hindutva world view.

Therefore politics has only a 'limited, instrumental character' in Golwalkar's thinking - an

'external appliance' that can be used or abused (Madan, 1996:223).

F. The Ideal Hindu Nation/Society (Rashtra)

Kohli explains the ideas Golwalkar has regarding the origin and development of the state and

state power. He held to the belief that there were four' Yugas'. To him, the different' Yugas'

'Satyuga', ' Tretayuga' , 'Devayuga' and (Kaliyuga' represent the different situations of

societal development:

In 'Satyuga', all were equal, property belonged to all and people used to live happily in harmony. Allfour components of Dharma pervaded the society. Dharma did not allow men to fight with one another.As time passed by, selfishness in human nature slowly raised its head. So, the need of some governanceand state power was felt by the people. In due course of time, the situation aggravated into what today istermed 'Kaliyuga'. Erosion of Dharma is the root cause of all the miseries and disorder in society. Ourancestors ...put forth a future model named'Krityuga'. This 'Krityuga' will be ushered in by theperseverance and endeavour of the people abiding by Dharma. Dharma will flourish with all its gloryagain. The innate oneness of the inanimate and the animate creations will be felt by all. (Kohli, 1993 :48)

The way, therefore, to deal with the present problems in society and to see the rejuvenation of

society is by inculcating dharma in all the people. The future society would be a stateless

society, where political power would fade away and society would be governed by sanskriti

and dharma (Kohli, 1993:49)26. There would not be envy, people would not acquire wealth

through wrong means and their lives would not be guided by materialistic goals. Where

dharma is practiced by all there will be no disorder, and therefore no need for social controls,

for the instrument of the State, for political power. It is not clear however, whether this

idealised society is also functioning in relation to other societies who do not uphold dharma

and whether political power would be needed to defend the Nation. One assumes that

somehow the entire world has imbibed the way of dharma in belief and practice.

G. Non- HinduslMinorities and the State

26 See also Andersen and Damle, 1987:83.108


Any discussion on the relationship between nonHindus/minorities and the State invariably

returns to the remarks that Golwalkar made concerning the non-Hindu minorities in his book

We (see Chapter 3). Golwalkar passionately made his case that non-Hindus, especially

Clrristians and Muslims as members of a foreign religion, must either return to their Hindu

roots and be assimilated into the Hindu Nation or find themselves outside the nation 'at the

sweet will of the national race', without the expectation of favour, preferential treatment or

even citizens rights. In his preface Golwalkar takes pains to state that his comments must only

be interpreted in the context of his views regarding the concept of 'Nation' and not that of the

'State'. Given the strength of his comments one finds it difficult to make a clear distinction

between the two. Citizens rights, for instance, is a 'State' not 'Nation' idea. However,

Golwalkar fails to explain further how he sees this being enforced by the state. In view of his

earlier comments that India would do well to learn from Nazi Germany's experience in their

initial treatment of the Jews, one is hard pressed not to consider the possibility that the [Hindu]

state, in certain circumstances, may use their powers to enforce the will of the state on its

minorities.

One would do well to take note of Koenrad Elst's recent attempts to bring a different

'positive' side to Golwalkar's comments. In context, Elst points out that in later years

Golwalkar and the RSS withdrew We or our Nationhood Defined from circulation and it has

not been published since. According to Elst this was done in recognition that We or our

Nationhood Defined was an immature publication and that its focus was an attempt to cast the

Hindu Nation in the mould of Western nationalism (2001a: 129). Yet, there does not seem to

be a clear repudiation of the underlYing ideas. Nevertheless, Elst attempts to address

Golwalkar's famous words. Firstly, Elst writes that the comments have nothing to do with

genocide and ethnic cleansing as non-Hindus 'may stay in the country', although they may not

claim any privileges. He further comments that ardent secularists should agree with this. All

people should be treated the same in a secular state regardless of religious faith. There should

be no special provisions made just because one is from a minority religious community. The

disputable part of Golwalkar's 'fascist' comments, Elst goes on, is the part of the quote where

Golwalkar claimed that the minority people must 'not claim even citizen's rights'. But, in this

case, he goes on, it would simply mean that Muslims would get the sa:c1e status in Golwalkar's

India as Clrristians and Jews, and sometimes pagans as well, as they would under the Zimma

109


(charter of toleration)27 situation in an Islamic State. They may stay in their own country

(conquered by the Muslims) but may not claim any privileges or even citizens rights

(2001a:132). Elst takes some time to explain the different Islamic schools of interpretation and

comments that a fundamental element in the whole status conferred is that non-Muslims are

excluded from the political decision making process. Elst continues:

... At worst one could interpret the controversial paragraph in Guruji's book as amounting to a proposalfor reciprocity with the treatment which non-Muslims get in the status under the mildest (Hanifite)system of Islamic law... The expression "not even citizens rights" strictly means that he would giveMuslims the same status which residents with a foreign passport have protection under the law, but notparticipation in political decision-making (author'S italics - 2001 a: 133).

Elst clearly has a bias against Muslims, especially Islamic ideology, in his books. But his point

is taken, that if Golwalkar was to continue to hold to this view it would only be a similar

situation to the way non-Muslims are treated in those countries seeking to establish a Muslim

State. Though this may sound surprising this was actually what Maududi advocated for India

after partition. Not that the new India should adopt Islamic law but that the new Constitution

should be framed on the basis of the laws of Manu - Hindu law. This may seem strange but

for Maududi this was logical. For him it was better for Muslims to live in a Hindu religious

state than in no religious state at all. It was consistent with his anti-secular views, that religion

was all-encompassing and there should be no dichotomy between the sacred and the secular.

But it served another purpose as well. 'Advocating a society based on zimmi (non-Muslim)

Muslim dichotomy was the flip-side of the imposition of Hindu Manu laws on Muslims.

Promoting the one ensured the legitimacy of the other' (Nasr, 1996: 100). It would also help to

preserve the communal boundaries between Hindus and Muslims which was an important

issue for Maududi and his ideology

H. The RSS, Religion and Politics

Golwalkar, and indeed the RSS, have continued to maintain down the years that the RSS is a

non-political socio-cultural organisation whose aim is to revitalise Hindu society (see for

instance, 1996:517). Its emphasis is on the oneness of the nation and the need to organise

Hindu society into a strong, vibrant nation. However, while it may not publicly acknowledge

any overtly political or religious goals, the RSS clearly is involved in politics and religion,

amongst other things it has helped to give birth to organisations political and religious such as

the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).

27 See my comments on this under Maududi's section in this chapter.110


Certainly, after the ban on the RSS was lifted in 1949, there was a clear shift in strategic

involvement in all areas of society, not just political. The large number of affiliated

organizations, including political ones, was a recognition that it was vital for the RSS to get

more directly involved. This meant also that it was important to have a politically friendly

government having witnessed first-hand what an unfriendly state power could do to them (i.e.

the arrest of Golwalkar and subsequent ban on the RSS). Yet a significant difference was that

the RSS itself would not be overtly represented as their own body in any area. They were to be

the 'head of the household', at the apex of the decision-making process (Andersen and Damle,

1987:95-96, 144) of this family of organisations, whom they themselves refer to as the 'Sangh

Parivar' (literally 'family of the Sangh' ~ RSS). In much the same way that the seers of old

were supposed to act as the 'moral authority' to check political and economic powers in

society the RSS see themselves taking the same role both for their own 'family' as well as for

society as whole28. In the context of the political/state arena Golwalkar writes that they are

'keeping themselves aloof from the tentacles of political power [while] at the same time alert

and powerful enough to check the erring powers that be' (1996:73; see also Kohli, 1993:550).

In the organicist model the RSS see themselves as the body that works towards the organising

and rejuvenating of the Hindu Nation. As a kind of 'institutional guru', to use Gold's

expression (1991: 571), or as a Raj Guru29, the RSS seeks to input, influence and to hold

accountable those wielding political power (the state) in the nation of India in order to best

achieve their ultimate objectives for establishing Hindu Rashtra in all its glory. They are

above all institutions in society, establishing dharma, and bringing harmony and oneness once

again back to the Nation. The question remains: To whom then will they be accountable?

As a final word it is well worth quoting T.N. Madan who made these summary statements

about Golwalkar, the RSS and the relationship between Hindu culture [and religion] and

politics:

28 This is clear in some comments made in Bunch of Thoughts where he likens these sages and seers, as thedefenders of the Hindu nation, to: Sri Ram against Ravana; Sri Shankaracharya against Buddhist age; Chaitanya,Tulsidas, Surdas against Muslim domination. He sees the same spiritual authority in the [then] present nationalrenaissance, the revivalists, against the foreign British yoke: Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Dayananda Ramanaand Yogi Aurobindo. The inference is that Golwalkar and the RSS see themselves as ones who stand in the sameroles.29 See Goyal, 2000: 166.

III


The above [Golwalkar's famous comments in We] is an unambiguous statement about power, couchedin cultural and political tenns; the relation between culture and politics is obviously an internal(hierarchical) one. In view of this, the professed non-involvement of the RSS in politics can be seen forwhat its, namely a strategy. If we recognize the pre-eminence of Hindu culture, Hindu monopoly overpower is ensured ideologicalIy... [since Golwalkar's assumption of the leadership of the RSS, post-We]the responsibility that went with it made him more circumspect in his pronouncements, but the essenceof his politico-cultural position remained unchanged...The above discussion of Golwalkar's viewsshould suffice to bring out the fact that, disavowals notwithstanding the ultimate objective of the RSS ispolitical domination through cultural homogenization (1996:223, 225)

Once Hindu cultural supremacy is established, it is natural that political power will be used to

maintain and protect that position. As Embree concluded, ' ... to outsiders it [the RSS] appears

as the quintessential example of the involvement of religion in politics' (1994:619).

CONCLUSION

This chapter began with the simple statement: Din and Dharma. These two terms, din for

Maududi, and dharma for Golwalkar, provided the framework for their respective ideologies.

Both terms implied that Islam on the one hand and Hindu culture/religion on the other

represented an all encompassing way of life. There was no dichotomy between religion and

politics. As Nasr so clearly pointed out regarding Maududi's ideas, but which also holds true

for Golwalkar, 'the religious infonned the political and the political sustained the religious'

(1996: 83). Both the religious and the political were simply parts or limbs of the same system

of life which was held together - by din according to Maududi, and by dharma according to

Golwalkar. The contrast of course was that Maududi filled din with meaning based on 'clearly

revealed' Divine sources and the understanding of the Sovereignty of God (Allah) whereas

Golwalkar filled dharma with meaning based on traditional Hindu culture, religious beliefs

and philosophy (with reference to Hindu scriptures). Both, however, took the liberty and

responsibility to interpret these in the light of their own understanding and the changing

historical/cultural/social/political circumstances they faced in their generation. Both sincerely

believed in their ideology - the belief system or world-views that they set forth, and

established organisations that would help propagate and realise that ideology in their

respective societies..

Though both believed that it was essential to first see a transformation in the character and

lives of individuals before society and the political arena could be changed, both compromised

to various degrees when faced with political realities, the partition of India for Maududi and

112


his arrest and the subsequent banning of the RSS in 1947-49 for Golwalkar. Maududi and the

Jamaat believed that it was right to jump right into political life as an organisation seeking to

directly 'capture' power in order to see Islamisation take place fully, even if this appeared

contrary to their original strategy. Golwalkar and the RSS on the other hand took a different

route. They helped to birth affiliated organisations (for example, BJS/BJP and the VHP) which

would represent them and their ideology/vision in politics and direct religious advocacy.30

Rather than taking the driver's seat, so to speak, they were happy to be the navigator directing

the other groups and assuming a directive though unofficial, decision-making role, though in

reality their ultimate goal was the same as the Jamaat.

As for the running of the state both Maududi and Golwalkar had concerns about the abuse of

authority and sought to bring in checks and accountability. Maududi saw this in the

qualifications of those who would take the positions as the amir and in the shura. Apparently

the amir was to remain accountable to the shura, men who were elected because of both their

piety as well as their understanding and interpretative ability of the shari 'ah, the Law of God.

Golwalkar looked to the seers and sages, religious holy men who were supposed to be

disinterested and above political and economic corruptibility to provide accountability for the

powers that be. Both Maududi and Golwalkar were against the use of force and violence or

coercion to fulfill state responsibilities, yet both were unclear as to what would happen if there

was opposition.

They were both convinced that if they were able to put 'the right people, with the right ideas,

in the right positions of power' then the state could and would work for the establishment of

din and dharma. In fact both held utopian, idealised visions for society that stated that if

everyone in society would only live according to the ideals set out in din and dharma there in

fact would be no disorder in society and harmony would reign. Golwalkar saw this as a

'stateless society'. For Maududi, the state was inherent in the formation of din so the ideal

meant joyful obedience to authority and righteous rulership. Maududi believed that the

political arena was an intrinsic part of Islamic society. But for Golwalkar the political was

transient, and was only valid to the degree that it upheld dharma. Both were strongly against

30 The VHP seeks to unite the seers, sages, sadhus etc of Hinduism and mobilize them to support issues thatsupport the cause of Hindutva, for example the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and the plan torebuild the temple in its place.

113

·, ..f- .. ,., ~. "i


conversion from their religious community to another. They both agreed that conversion is

primarily a change in loyalty to the community and would be viewed as a dangerous threat to

society (treachery) and the ideology that underlies it. Both would initiate steps to address this.

Maududi believed wholeheartedly that the state should be actively involved in enforcing

religious injunctions in society, although perhaps political expediency required Maududi to

describe the 'how of enforcement' in more circumspect tenns. Golwalkar shied away from this

believing that autonomous socio/cultural organisations would better serve this purpose, free

from the corrupting influence of political power. When the Hindu Nation was supreme,

adherence to the ideology would naturally follow. For Maududi, the Sovereignty of God and

the Shari lah were the foundations for society and the state. For Golwalkar it was the Hindu

Nation and the living out of dharmic values. God (Allah), according to Maududi was the de

jure head of the state and society. The Hindu Nation, took that place for Golwalkar.

Another difference was that Maududi worked towards a state in which there were different

laws and a different status for Muslims and non-Muslims. He was a strident communalist.

Golwalkar on the other hand believed in a single law system irrespective of religious

background. What is not clear, however, is whose laws would be the unifonn law and under

what basis would they be decided. If Hindu supremacy were guaranteed, would it mean that

all would have to follow Hindu Law?

The objective for the state according to Maududi, was the complete implementation of the

Will of God expressed through the Law of God, the shari 'ah. Through state guidance and

individual renewal the Sovereignty of God would be revealed in society. In a real sense the

Islamic State was both the means and the end for the establishment of Islam in society. It was

both part of society, and yet encompassing the whole of society as the expression of din. For

Golwalkar, the state was simply a means, whose end was merely one element amongst many

both in the expression of dharma in the Hindu Nation, and in the strengthening and defending

of that Nation (politically, culturally, religiously, economically and socially) against internal

and external threats.

114


Perhaps the biggest difference between the two was that Maududi produced a detailed

blueprint of the Islamic State, its functions, its laws, its dealings. Golwalkar, while

acknowledging the rightful place for the State to uphold dharma in society, falls short of any

detailed undertaking as to what it would actually look like. If the relationship between religion

and the State were like a painting, Maududi' s painting would be filled with fine, detailed parts

whereas Golwalkar's painting would be full of broad sTNeeping strokes. He leaves the details

for others to fill in.

115


FINAL CONCLUSION

Conclusion

At the outset of the thesis it was proposed that before directly considering the topic 'religion

and the state' it was important to look first at the related ideas, the building blocks, that were

essential to the thinking of the proposed protagonists, Maududi and Golwalkar. After

reflecting on their personal, historical, political and religious contexts, the way in which

Maududi and Golwalkar answered several important questions was considered. These

included questions of identity - Who am I (the individual)? and, Who. are we (the

community)?, then the questions raised by the ideas of nation and nationalism, and by

secularism. A brief summary of the results of the comparisons made in these chapters now

follows, then they will be used as a basis to make some general conclusions for the thesis as a

whole.

In Chapter 1, the context for both Maududi and Golwalkar centred around the events of the

first half of the twentieth century and in particular the events leading up to and after the

partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947. This of course, included the issues

raised by British Rule and colonialism. Maududi was placed in a long history of Muslim

revivalists in India who, for the nearly thousand years that Muslims dominated the political

life of India, were faced with the challenge of upholding religious orthodoxy while

maintaining political authority and control over a majority non-Muslim populace. Maududi

was faced with the same challenge of upholding religious orthodoxy but in the context of nOll

Muslim British rule and the potential for change to majority Hindu governance.

Golwalkar, likewise, was placed in a history of Hindu reformers/revivalists who had to

respond to the changing 'confrontational and accommodationalist' policies exerted by the

Muslims over the non-Muslim population during Muslim Rule and of the 'divide and rule'

policies of the British. Maududi' s answer was the need for the political and religious renewal

of Muslim society with the end goal being the introduction of an Islamic State. Golwalkar

believed the need was for the strengthening of the Hindu community and it's identity through

a renewal of Hindu ways and ideals - The end goal for Golwalkar was the creation of a robust

nation dominated by Hindu culture over against all foreign intrusions.

116

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies' Conclusion

In Chapter 2 we saw that both Maududi and Golwalkar believed that their respective societies

needed transformation, and that for this transfonnation to be lasting it must begin with

individual renewal (the internal question). They sought to define and promote an idealised

concept of what a 'true' Muslim or Hindu was. For Maududi this meant that Muslims should

return to the sources of the Islamic faith, the Qur 'an and the Sunnah, and to absolute

obedience and submission to the Sovereignty of God in every area of their lives. Golwalkar

looked to identify the roots of the Hindu Nation as essential ingredients in defining a Hindu,

these included geography, blood and culture (Hindu religion, tradition and language). The

embracing of Hindu ideals, the understanding of Hindu oneness and the worship of the Nation

as God would lead to both individual and community salvation - that is God-realisation. Both

believed that their respective societies had fallen from lofty and dominant positions once held

in India. Maududi claimed it was because Muslims had failed to know and obey the Will of

God revealed through the great sources of Islam, the Qur 'an and the Sunnah. Golwalkar

claimed it was because Hindus had forgotten the inherent oneness that had always existed and

held Hindu society together. Ignorance, claimed Maududi and Golwalkar, was the leading

cause of these maladies and the cure lay through education and instruction and a return to God

(Allah/Bharat Mata)-consciousness. The foundation for societal transformation was both a

renewal of God-consciousness and an undivided commitment and allegiance (loyalty) to Allah

and the Law of God, according to Maududi, and the Hindu Nation - its culture and ideals

according to Golwalkar. Each held that all else must be subordinated to these t\vo things.

In Chapter 3 we looked at the broader, external question of community identity. Maududi and

Golwalkar both fought to communicate to their respective communities a means of

identification in order to combat alternative and competing 'nationalisms' to British Rule.

Both advocated the primacy of Muslim and Hindu communities (that is, their own) over all

other communities in an 'accommodation of domination'. Maududi's vision for the Muslim

community was trans-territorial (global) and trans-cultural. The Muslim Nation did not refer to

a particular piece of land or a particular culture but to all Muslims around the world who hold

to and practice the faith of Islam - these represented the ummah or dar ul-Islam. Golwalkar,s

defmition of the Hindu Nation was limited territorially (bound by the Himalayas in the north

and the sea in the south, but included more than what is known today as India) it was clearly

bound by one, 'homogenous' Hindu culture. These ideas helped to demarcate boundaries as to

117

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Conclusion

who was included and excluded in the Muslim and Hindu communities. More than an 'us

against them' mentality it was an 'us over them' boundary definition to show what place other

communities would have in relation to their own community.

In Chapter 4 we considered the issues that secularism brought for Maududi and Golwalkar.

For both men secularism raised two main issues: a negative view of God and religion, and the

separation of religion from society, from the public to the private domain alone. As stated

above, both claimed that what was needed was not less of God but more of God-consciousness

in all areas of society. Religion was not limited to the personal realm but also had clear

societal ramifications. Both were convinced that secularism only brought selfishness, strife

and division and that the solution to these problems (whether it be the individual, community

or world) lay in either the implementation of din - of bringing all of society under the

Sovereignty of God, according to Maududi, or the implementation of dharma (Hindu ideals

and traditions) in all parts of society as Golwalkar believed. In view of tms both Maududi and

Golwalkar encouraged the establishment of 'sister' affiliate organisations that would penetrate

and influence specific sections of society.

A unique issue for Golwalkar was his definition of Hindu tolerance (an important element of

secular society as Golwalkar saw it)! as submission to and assimilation into the Hindu Nation.

Hindu or 'true' tolerance meant that all other communities would be tolerated as long as they

were not seen to weaken or threaten the Hindu Nation. Weakness or threat was defined by the

degree, or rather lack , of assimilation and embracement of Hindu culture and ideals. Where

such a point was reached Hindu tolerance would become intolerance and steps should be taken

to arrest the situation in favour of the Hindu community.

Chapter 5 summarises the ideas of Golwalkar and Maududi which have been the focus of this

thesis. In it I considered how the elements of the ideological systems of Maududi and

Golwalkar find their logical conclusions in their theory of the political order. Maududi and

Golwalkar both defined religion, Islam and Hinduism respectively, as a way of life (din and

dharma) that pervaded, guided and established society, including the State, in all its varied

1 Something that Maududi also did in his definition of the term 'democracy' in association with his envisionedIslamic State described in Chapter 5.

118


aspects. 'Religion informed politics and politics sustained religion' - the two were

fundamentally intertwined. Institutional religion (overt religious practices, rites, ceremonies,

beliefs - about the nature of God etc.) and politics were limbs of the same body or system of

life. Maududi' s view of the relationship of religion with the State was very overt or explicit.

The Islamic State or governing political authority was both the means to, and the end of an

ideal Islamic society. Fundamentally, the Islamic State was supposed to represent a kind of

'heaven on earth'. Heaven, or ideal society, was described by Maududi as a place where the

Law of God was perfectly enforced and obeyed by the State and its citizens.

Golwalkar's view, while holding to the above understanding of the way religion and politics

related to one another, saw the State as simply one part of the whole. It was not the end. Its

role was to uphold and protect the Hindu Nation, as expressed through dharma, from internal

and external threat (that which could threaten or weaken the Nation). The political was

subordinated to Hindu culture. Rather than the State wielding both religious and political

authority, as Maududi wanted, Golwalkar saw a separation with religious seers and sages, men

of high moral character and spiritual enlightenment (detachment), holding the State, as indeed

other parts of society, accountable to dharma and Hindu oneness. Maududi believed that

upright, pious and knowledgeable men could fulfill both functions without the need for

separation. These men, according to Maududi, would both interpret and implement God's Law

for and in society.

Regarding members of other religious communities (non-Muslirn/non-Hindu) Maududi was

very explicit about this relationship and unashamedly outlined a blueprint for society that had

Muslims as the main citizens of the state and all non-Muslims as secondary members with

limited rights and privileges. Only Muslims (who had correct faith and knowledge - ideology

of Islam) were allowed to hold significant positions of influence and decision-making in

society. He held that to give this to anyone else was to open the Islamic State, and therefore

society, to threat and, in time, to deterioration. It was only Muslims who could be counted on

to be loyal, both to the state and to the ideology it stood for. Non-Muslims could not be

counted on or trusted to defend and implement Islamic Law (be it the Shari lah or din). The

rights of non-Muslims were limited to the practice of their own faith within their own

community and where it did not contravene or threaten Islamic society.

119

, -';i,-'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Conclusion

Golwalkar never specifically outlined how he saw non-Hindus functioning in his ideal society.

Nevertheless the ideas he elucidated implied the direction that it could take. If we remember

that Golwalkar, like Maududi, was a man of vision, who sought to paint a picture of the ideal

society, then it is possible to consider where his ideas might lead. Certainly, in his famous

statement in We, Golwalkar made it clear that non-Hindus only have a full and equal place in

the Hindu Nation as long as they assimilate and uphold Hindu values and traditions.

Externally they must participate, laud and look Hindu. They may hold decision-making

positions in society and the State, unlike Maududi's view, but only if they are committed to

upholding Hindu dharma, strengthening the Hindu Nation and imbibing Hindu oneness. In an

apparent paradox2, Golwalkar went on to claim that unless Muslims and Christians change to

'Hindu-Muslims', 'Hindu-Christians' etc., then their loyalty would be questioned, and they

would be disqualified from holding positions of influence. Non-Hindus, to be considered full

citizens, would need to virtually deny any commitment to religious traditions, persons, or

places that did not originate from the soil or blood of India. Religious freedom, in the case of

non-Hindus, would be limited to personal beliefs (that is, in the home only).

Of all issues concerning non-Muslims/non-Hindus the issue of conversion was perhaps the

most emotive for both men. Given the boundaries of this thesis, I have touched on, but not

delved deeply into, this topic. Certainly, it would be an important element to be added for

further discussion. In the whole issue of religion and the state, and especially in relation to the

monotheistic, missionary religions of Islam and Christianity, Maududi and Golwalkar would

make conversion, from their religious faith to another, illegal (indeed, as pointed out earlier,

Maududi actually advocated the death penalty as punishment), and that this would be enforced

and upheld by the state governing body. Nothing is more detrimental to breaking harmony and

solidarity and causing weakness in society (the Muslim and Hindu Nations) than conversion.

2 The paradox is that Golwalkar, while speaking against things foreign, allows for a kind of semi-compromise by,in the minimum, allowing for a 'Muslim or Christian-Hindu'. This may well be explained as political expediencyin order to sound more acceptable. Nevertheless, though it may sound good to Golwalkar there are some seriousimplications. Not the least of these is that many if not most Muslims and Christians would find that their coredoctrinal beliefs would hold such tenninology, and the implications they hold for their religious faith, anathemaor blasphemous.

120


This thesis now concludes by considering three statements and their implications for present

day India and Pakistan. These three sets of statements highlight some of the crucial issues that

fonned the basis for the thesis, they address key ideas that arise out of it, and speak to future

implications that need to be considered.

The first is a comment from Elaine Pagels3:

'For ideas alone do not make a religion powerful, although it cannot succeed without them; equally

important are social and political structures that identify and unite people into a common affiliation.'

(Pagels, 1979: 141)

This thesis focused on the relationship between religion and the state. Inevitably that leads to a

discussion about power - who holds it and how it is used? Pagels was stating that, in the

context of religion, ideas, though essential are not enough. Two more factors are equally

important if those ideas are to have any long-term impact in society. That is, the need for

organizational structures, and power - state power - to defend and promote those ideas and to

unite society around them. This statement would certainly hold true for Maududi and

Golwalkar. Both developed their ideas and helped to establish organizational structures to

carry forward those ideas (the Jamaat-I-Islami and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh -and the

extended Sangh Parivar family of related organizations). What was missing, and has been

missing up to now, was consolidated political/state power which would effectively see those

ideas become finnly established in society. Maududi, beginning as pamphleteer, became a

religious reformist/revivalist and ended up a political activist. On entering the newly formed

nation of Pakistan Maududi saw in it the hope of a truly Islamic State. The acquisition of

power was the missing piece of Maududi' s puzzle needed to complete his vision. However, in

pursuing the political option, he compromised and a diluted his ideas to conform to the

~present reality'. While being influential, Maududi and the Jamaat-I-Islami have never been

able to 'capture' political power in their own right, and therefore, perhaps, have not been able

to implement their vision for Pakistan.

3 This was written in the context of the early spread of Christianity, and some of the issues resulting from therelationship, in this case merging, of religion and the State. The context is more comparable with Maududi asPagels was pursuing an argument about the way the State and religious establishment used their combined powerto stamp out what they considered to be heretical (heterodoxical) beliefs and practices. This was an issue that wasuppermost in Maududi's mind concerning the large mass of Muslims, who, while claiming to be Muslims, stillheld to beliefs and traditions that had more to do with their Hindu past than with orthodox Islam.

121


Golwalkar and the RSS (Sangh Parivar) have been through a similar situation in India

although they have been more successful politically and ideologically speaking. Though their

initial foray into politics did not go well (Bharatiya Jana Sangh - BJS), their second attempt

through the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been far more successful. The reasons for this are

beyond the scope of this thesis. My point however, is that though they have tasted some

success in assuming politicaVstate authority in India they have still not gained power in their

own right. Presently, the BJP is the dominant party in the ruling government and holds most of

the major portfolios. But they still require the support of more than twenty minor parties to

function in that role. Realising this they deliberately and strategically withdrew several of their

key personal (Hindutva) election planks in order to gamer a consensus coalition to fonn the

central government. As a result they have also had to compromise on what they would like to

achieve. But temporary compromise does not necessarily mean a change in long-term goals.

The attainment of political power without the aid of ideologically opposed political parties

will give the RSS/BJP/Sangh Parivar the opportunity to implement an agenda that is even

now, albeit in small bites, being put into place.4 Almost certainly, the Constitution of India

would likely be changed or amended to facilitate this process.

The second related statement is one mentioned in the introduction - 'Ideas have

consequences'. Not only do ideas come from a context, which I have described in the thesis,

but they also have consequences. The ideas that Maududi and Golwalkar put forward have had

their consequences in Pakistan and India. Some of those I have listed in the introduction. My

concern is for the future. Both men are dead, yet their ideas live on in the hearts and minds of

others. While, many of those ideas are the same, there is always the potential for others to take

these ideas further and develop them in their own unique way (Osama Bin Laden is perhaps an

example of this). Indeed, the Jamaat-I-Islami and the RSS have had those who have left their

4 For instance the attempt by Murali Manohar Joshi, Minister for Human Resource Development, to 'saffronise'(the term given to the RSS's agenda to impose/promote a pro-Hindu ideas in society) the education system inIndia. This he is doing, for instance, by rewriting the curriculum for history books to correct what the RSSbelieve to be past 'mistakes' and 'inaccuracies'. For instance, today, as I write this conclusion, there is an articlein The Times OfIndia newspaper (p 4, 2/1/02, Kolkata) on this very issue. Entitled 'RSS scared of the truth inhistory, says scholar'. A well known non-RSS scholar, Sumit Sarkar, is quoted as saying: 'The future of India'schildren and the nation's history is indeed in danger when self declared academic gurus carrying a saffronbanners and chanting shoklas - suggest that history books need not be written by historians any longer and thatanyone with 'basic knowledge' of history and 'writing skills' suited for children, can be given the task...Historycannot be imagined and rewritten simply to suit political needs. Nor can truth be hidden or twisted to ensure thatthe sentiments of certain people are not hurt ... [the attempts by the BIP and the Sangh Parivar to rewrite history

122


respective organisations because these people believed that there had been too much

compromise and dilution, and the organizations were not as radical as they should be.5 The

radical end/consequences for the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar would be the establishment

of states that would uphold the supremacy of their particular religion, culture, and way of life

over other communities, if necessary through oppression, force or violence. Of course

historical events/movements and an accurate prediction of the future cannot be reduced to the

simple formula ideas plus organisation plus power. Other factors such as economics and

sociology are involved. Nevertheless, the genesis of much of history is located in ideas and the

way they are worked out through individuals and society.

It is worth noting here that one should be careful about the use of the term 'fundamentalist'.

There needs to be a clear differentiation between those who hold to the 'fundamentals' of

religion as they see it, and those who are willing to advocate and use violence to enforce that

view on others. A clear differentiation between religious 'fundamentalists' and 'extremists'

(that is, those who advocate violence for their cause) is important. Though there may be some

debate as to which category Maududi and Golwalkar belong, there is no doubt that there are

others who have taken these ideas, and who rightly fall under a 'religious-extremist' label.

Examples of the latter are Osama bin Laden, or the Nathuram Godse, cited above, who

assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, or perhaps the' abortion clinic bombers' in the United States.

The third, a combination of statements, comes from Samuel Huntington, whose book The

Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order has been a major talking point since

its publication in the mid-1990s. It became especially significant since the recent military

action by the United States and its allies in Afghanistan to bring to account Muslim 'terrorist'

Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, accused of masterminding the September 11 th

2001 destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in New York. Some of the parallels are

fascinating and worth pursuing in more detail. While I do not necessarily agree with all of

Huntington's comments or theses some of what he says is directly related to this thesis and its

conclusion. Some pertinent quotes will suffice as preface to its final comments.

text books and recent statements by its self appointed academic gurus, were] nothing short of Fascist methods ofcensoring history'. The fact that some of his history books were being rewritten gave extra bite to his words!5 For example, Nathuram Godse, the man who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, was a former disgruntled RSSmember who did not feel the RSS were going as far as they should have in implementing the Hindutva agenda.

123


In the post-Cold War world, states increasingly define their interests in civilizational terms. Theycooperate with and ally themselves with similar or common culture and are more often in conflict withcountries of different culture [and religion]. (1997: 34)

Of all the objective elements, which define civilizations, however, the most important is religion. Thecrucial distinction among human groups concern their values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures,not their physical size, head shapes, and skin colors. (p 42)

Indigenization has been the order of the day throughout the nonwestem world in the 1980s and 1990s.The resurgence of Islam and "re-Islamization" are the central themes in Muslim societies. In India theprevailing trend is the rejection of Western fonns and values and the "Hinduization" of politics andreligion. (p 94)

All religions, as Hassan al-Turabis said, furnish "people with a sense of identity and a ,direction in life.In this process people rediscover or create new historical identities. Whatever universalist goals theymay have, religions give people a sense of identity by positing a basic distinction between believers andnonbelievers, between a superior in-group and a different and inferior out-group" (p 97).

In the Muslim world, Bernard Lewis argues, there has been "a recurring tendency in recent times ofemergency, for Muslims to find their basic identity and loyalty in the religious community ... an entitydefined by Islam rather than by ethnic or cultural criteria".. .In India, 'a new Hindu identity is underconstruction' as a response to tensions and alienation generated by modernization [and other factors]. (p98)

... the fault lines between civilizations are becoming the centralljnes of conflict in global politics ...Thequestion, "Which side are you on?" has been replaced by the much more fundamental one, 'Who areyou?' Every state has an answer. That answer, its cultural identity, defines the state's place in worldpolitics, its friends, and its enemies .. .Identity issues are, of course, particularly intense in cleft countriesthat have sizeable groups of people from different civilizations... In coping with identity crisis, whatcounts for people are blood and belief, faith and family. (pp 125-126)

Deep divisions are ...much more likely to emerge within a cleft country where large groups belong todifferent civilizations. Such divisions and the tensions that go with them often develop when a majoritygroup belonging to one civilization attempts to define the state as its political instrument and to make itslanguage, religion, and symbols those of the state, as Hindus...have attempted to do in India... (p 137)

In the emerging world, the relations between states and groups of different civilizations will not be closeand will often be antagonistic (p184) ...Fault line conflicts are conflicts between states or groups fromdifferent civilizations ... Involving fundamental issues of group identity and power, they are difficult toresolve through negotiations and compromise... Fault line conflicts are ... frequently [over] ... the controlof territory...The territory at stake often is for one or both sides a highly charged symbol of their historyand identity, sacred land to which they have an inviolable right: ... [e.g.] Kashmir (pp 252-253).

And finally:

In fault line wars, each side has incentives not only to emphasize it[s] own civilizational identity but alsothat of the other side. In its local war, it sees itself not just fighting another local ethnic group butfighting another civilization...The local war becomes redefined as a war of religions, a clash ofcivilizations (p 270).

These comments are very pertinent to the situation which exists between Pakistan and India.

From the need to define one's civilisation in tenns of religion and culture, to a cleft country

(India), to 'sacred territory' (both Pakistan and India), to 'fault line conflicts' between

civilisations, all these echo in the present and historical relationship between Islam and

124


Hinduism in South Asia, between Pakistan and India as political states, and fundamentally,

between Maududi and Golwalkar and their ideas concerning religion and the state. They were

not simply defining their communities. They were seeking to bring definition to their

civilizations as they saw it. Their definition is most clearly seen in their opposition to each

other. If, in the future, a series of events takes place whereby people and organizations who

have inherited Maududi's ideas in Pakistan and Golwalkar's ideas in India, come to complete

political power in their respective countries, during the same time, the potential for a major

'fault line conflict' is high (even if we were to put aside the 'little' problem that both nations

presently have nuclear weapons). Of particular concern would be if those in Pakistan would

not only see Kashmir as a problem that needs solving ('freeing their Muslim brethren') but if

they also believed they had the divine mandate and power to extend the House or Land of

Islam (dar ul-Islam) throughjihad, over present day Indian territory. A robust Hindu Nation

would rise to the challenge and one can speculate what might happen.

'Blood brothers, Sworn Enemies'. 'Blood Brothers,6 - Maududi and Golwalkar were born and

died within a few short years of each other, on Indian soil, and of Indian blood. Though from

quite opposite ideological and religious world-views both Maududi and Golwalkar come

perilously close to similar conclusions. Religion has everything to do with the state. Be it din

or dharma both claim that their religions are not simply made up of external religious beliefs

and rites but a way of life that must necessarily permeate and be lived out in every sphere of

society, including the political realm. Theirs is an 'accommodation of domination' where

Muslim and Hindu supremacy must be reinforced in order for society to be strong and vibrant,

and one. Yet they were also 'Sworn Enemies'. In the end, the bottom line is that both have

largely defined themselves and their respective civilizations in antagonism and opposition to

one another - 'Islamic Pakistan versus Hindu India' the 'Green Crescent versus the Saffron

Trident'.

The decisive factor will be whether those who hold to and have developed their ideas further,

have been able to convince a majority of their countrymen that their self-definition is the

correct one, and have the power to enforce it. History will one day tell us whether the ideas of

6 In Pakistan and India the term would more appropriately be 'Cousin Brothers'.

125


Maududi and Golwalkar will have ultimately defined the future of South Asia, and in

particular, the future of Pakistan and India.

126


REFERENCES

Source References

Adams, Charles 1. (1966) 'The Ideology of Maulana Mawdudi' in South Asia Religion andPolitics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Ahmad, Mumtaz (1991) 'Islamic Fundamentalism in South Asia: The Jamaat-I-Islami and theTablighi Jamaat of South Asia' in Fundamentalisms Observed edited by Martin E. Marty and R.Scott Appleby, University of Chicago: Chicago.

Ahmed, Ishtiaq (1991) The Concept ofan Islamic State in Pakistan, Vanguard: Lahore.

Ahmed, Raifuddin (1994) 'Redefining Muslim Identity in South Asia: The Transformation ofthe Jama'at -I-Islami' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R.Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Anderson, Walter K. and Damle, Shridhar D. (1987) The Brotherhood in Saffron: The RashtriyaSwayam Sevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Vistar: New Delhi.

Bullock, Alan (1993) [1991] Hitler and Stalin - Parallel Lives, Fontana: London.

Choueiri, Youssef M. (1997) [1990] Islamic Fundamentalism, Pinter: London.

Elst, Koenraad (2001a) The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of "Hindu Fascism ", Vol. 1 and Vol.2, Voice of India: New Delhi.

Embree, Ainslie T. (1994) 'The Function of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: To Define theHindu Nation' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. ScottAppleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

------(2001b) Decolonizing the Hindu Mind - Ideological Development ofHindu Revivalism,Rupa and Co.: New Delhi.

Frykenberg, Robert E. (1993) 'Hindu Nationalism and the Structural Stability of India' inFundamentalisms and the State edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, ChicagoUniversity Press: Chicago.

Gold, Daniel (1991) 'Organized Hinduisms: Vedic Truth to Hindu Nation' in FundamentalismsObserved, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University: Chicago.

Golwalkar, M.S. (1947 - 4th edition) We or Our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Prakashan:Nagpur.

-----(1974) Spotlights, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan: Bangalore.

-----(1996 _3rd edition) Bunch ofThoughts, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan: Bangalore.

----- (2000a) 'For National Re-Organisation'. [Online accessed 21 June 2000]URL: http/www.rss.org/librarylbooksandpublications.htm/

-----(2000b) 'Our Social Fabric'. [Online accessed 21 June 2000]URL: http/www.rss.org/library/booksandpublications.htm/

127

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies' Source References

Goyal, D.R. (2000) [1979] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Radha Krishna: New Delhi.

Gupta, Chitra (1993) 'Life of Barrister Savarkar' in V.D. Savarkar (Political Thinkers ofModern India - 14) edited by Verinder Grover, Deep and Deep: Delhi.

Hansen, T.B. (1999) The Saffron Wave - Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India,Oxford: Delhi.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1997) The Clash ofCivilizations and the Remaking ofWorld Order,Penguin: New Delhi.

Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999) The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics -1925 to the1990s, Penguin: New Delhi.

Keer, Dhananjay (1988) Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan: Bombay.

Kohli, Ritu (1993) Political Ideas ofMS. Golwalkar - Hindutva, Nationalism, Secularism, Deepand Deep: Delhi.

Lawrence, Bruce B. (1989) Defenders ofGod - The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the ModernAge, University of Carolina: Columbia.

Madan, T.N. (1997) Modern Myths. Locked Minds, Oxford University Press: Delhi.

Maududi, Abu Ala (revised ed.1986; original 1960) Islamic Law and Constitution [trans.Khurshid Ahmad], Taj Company: Delhi.

-----(1991) Come Let Us Change the World (a collection of his writings from 1939 to mid1960's), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1992) West Versus Islam (a collection of various articles written by Maududi between1934-38), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1993a) Nationalism and India (originally published in 1948), Markazi Maktaba Islami:Delhi.

-----(1993b 3rd ed) Human Rights in Islam (an English translation of a radio talk given in Jan.1948), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1996a) The Message ofIslam (a paper presented in 1976), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----------------------(1996b) Towards Understanding Islam (the original written around 1960),Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1996c) Ethical Viewpoint ofIslam (an English translation of two public addresses given in1944), edited, revised and translated by Khurshid Ahmad, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

128

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies' Source References

;)", -----(1997) [Ed. Khurram Murad, first pub. 1940] Let Us Be Muslims, Markazi Maktaba Islami:Delhi.

Minault, Gail (1999 edition) The Khilafat Movement, Oxford: New Delhi.

Nasr, Seyyed VaH Reza (1996) Mawdudi and the Making ofIslamic Revivalism, Oxford: NewYork.

Pagels, E. (1979) The Gnostic Gospels, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.

Radford, David P (1999a) 'What is fundamentalism, and why has it emerged? In exploring theseissues discuss at least two examples of fundamentalism, the adequacy of the concept and someissues of interpretation'. An unpublished paper towards Master of Arts degree in ReligionStudies, University of South Australia.

-----(1999b) 'In what understanding ofpluralism was the Constitution of India written?' Anunpublished paper towards Master of Arts degree in Religion Studies, University of SouthAustralia.

Rao, K.L. Seshagiri (1988) 'The Roots of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India: British Colonialismand Religious Revival' in The Politics ofReligion and Social Change-Religion and the PoliticalOrder, Vol.!!, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.

Saiedi, Nadar (1996) 'What is Islamic Fundamentalism?' in Prophetic Religions and PoliticsReligion and the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, ParagonHouse: New York.

Sarkar, Sumit (1996) 'Indian Nationalism and the Politics of Hindutva' , in Making India Hindu,David Ludden (ed), Oxford University: Delhi.

Savarkar, V.D. (1989 - 6th Edition) Hindutva - Who is a Hindu, Bharti Sahitya Sadan: NewDelhi.

Singh, David E. (2000) 'Prefatory Reflections on Muslim-Christian Relations in the Context ofMawdudi's Islamism' in Dharma Deepika, Deepika Educational Trust, Chennai.

Trehan, Jhoti (1991) Veer Savarkar, Thought and Action, Deep and Deep: Delhi.

Van de Veer, Peter (1998) Religious Nationalism - Hindus and Muslims in India, Oxford: NewDelhi.

129


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abul Ala Maududi, 'Essential Features of the Islamic Political System',www.crusades.orglpolitics/politicalsystem.htm. Downloaded: 15/6/00

----- 'Mawlana Sayyid Abul A 'la Maududi - Pioneers of Islamic Revival' ,www.muslimsites.com/r.tufail/maududi.html. Downloaded: 15/6/00

Bibliography

Almond, G.A., Sivan, Emmanuel, and Appleby, R. Scott (1995) 'Examining the Cases' inFundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby,Chicago University Press: Chicago.

-----(1995) 'Politics, Ethnicity, and Fundamentalism' in FundamentalismsComprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago UniversityPress: Chicago.

Arjomand, Said Amir (1995) 'Unity and Diversity in Islamic Fundamentalism' inFundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby,Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Bajpai, Dr. Suresh Chandra (1998) R.S.S. at a Glance, Suruchi Prakashan: New Delhi.

Basu, Tapan, Datta, P, Sakar S., and Sen S. (1993) Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags,Orient Longman: Hyderabad.

Baxter, Craig (1966) 'The Jana Sangh: A Brief History' in South Asian Religion andPolitics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.

-----(1971) Jana Sangh, Oxford University: Bombay.

Bayly, C.A. (1998) Origins ofNationality in South ASia, Oxford: Delhi.

Bayly, Susan (1994) 'Christians and Competing Fundamentalisms in South IndianSociety' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. ScottAppleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Binder, Leonard (1961) Religion and Politics in Pakistan, Delhi.

Buultjens, Ralph (1986) 'India: Religion, Political Legitimacy, and the Secular State' inThe Annals (of The American Academy of Political and Social Science), Lambert,Richard D. (ed.) Vol. 483: January 1986. Sage Pub: Beverly Hills.

Eliade, Mircea (1978) A History ofReligious Ideas, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

130

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies' Bibliography

Esposito, John L. (1986) 'Modem Islamic Sociopolitical Thought' in Prophetic Religionsand Politics - Religion and the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and AnsonShupe, Paragon House: New York.

-----(1987) 'Islam: Ideology and Politics in Pakistan' in The State, Religion and PoliticsPakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, edited by Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner, VanguardPress: place not known.

Frykenberg, Robert E. (1993) , Hindu Fundamentalism and the Structural Stability ofIndia' in Fundamentalisms and the State, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. ScottAppleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Gadre, G.D. (1990) The Role ofIslam in South Asia, Al Fatiha Foundation: Pune.

Gandhi, Rajrnohan (1999) Revenge and Reconciliation - Understanding South AsianHistory, Penguin: New Delhi.

Golwalkar. M.S., Upadhyaya, Deendayal, Thengadi D.B. (1991 b) Integral Approach,Suruchi Prakashan: Delhi.

----- 'Our Motherland', 'Our Nationalism', 'Our National malady', 'Towards Manmaking', 'Guidelines for National Workers',www.rss.org/library/booksandpublications.htm. Downloaded 21/6/00

Goyal, D.R. (2000) [1979] Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Radha Krishna: New Delhi.

Gould, Harry A. (1966) 'Religion and Politics in a U.P. Constituency' in South AsianReligion and Politics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Grover, Verinder (1993) V.D. Savarkar: Political Thinkers ofIndia -14, Deep and Deep:Delhi.

Hadden, Jeffrey K. (1986) 'Introduction' in Prophetic Religions and Politics - Religionand the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Paragon House:New York.

Hoffman, Valerie J. (1995) 'Muslim Fundamentalists: Psychosocial Profiles' inFundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby,Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Jamaat-i-Islami, 'The Founder - His Writings', 'The Founder - Writings about Him','The Founder', www.jamaat.org/overview/founder.html. Downloaded 15/6/00

Kumar, Krishna (1993) 'Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India' inFundamentalisms and Society, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, ChicagoUniversity Press: Chicago.

131


Lapierre, Dominique and Collins, Larry (1997 Freedom at Midnight, Vikas: Delhi.

Lennan, Eran (1981) 'Mawdudi's Concept of Islam' in Middle Eastern Studies 17,4,pp.492-509.

Long, Theodore E. (1988) 'A Theory of Prophetic Religion and Politics' in The PoliticsofReligion and Social Change - Religion and the Political Order Vol. II, edited byAnson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.

Long, Theodore E. (1986) 'Prophecy, Charisma, and Politics: Reinterpreting theWeberian Thesis' in Prophetic Religions and Politics - Religion and the Political Order,edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Paragon House: New York.

-----(1988) 'A Theory of Prophetic Religion and Politics' in The Politics ofReligion andChange - Religion and the Political Order Vol.!I, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K.Hadden, Paragon House: New York.

Ludden, David (ed) (1996) Making India Hindu, Oxford University: Delhi.

Mangalwadi, Vishal (1997) India: The Grand Experiment, Pippa Rann: Farnham.

Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (editors)------1991, Fundamentalisms Observed------1993, Fundamentalisms and Society------1993, Fundamentalisms and the State------1994, Accountingfor Fundamentalisms------1995, Fundamentalism ComprehendedChicago University Press: Chicago.

------(1993b) 'Introduction' in Fundamentalisms and the State, edited by Martin E. Martyand R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press.

------(1995) 'Introduction' in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E.Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Maududi [Mawdudi], Abula Ala (1978a) The First Principles ofthe Islamic State,Khurshid Ahmad (trans.), Islamic Publications Ltd: Lahore.

-----(1978b) Vitals ofFaith, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1979) Finality ofProphethood, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1986) [ed. Khurshid Ahmad and Khurram Murad] The Islamic Way ofLife. Markazimaktaba Islami: Delhi.

132


-----(1989a) [1981J Our Message, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

Bibliography

-----(1989c 3rd ed.) The Sick Nations ofthe Modern Age, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1990) Guidelines for Islamic Workers, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1991b) [Khurram Murad ed.J The Islamic Movement - Dynamics of Values Powerand Change, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1992a rev. ed) [1973J A Short History ofthe Revivalist Movement in Islam, MarkaziMaktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1992b) [ed. and trans. Khurram Murad] Witnesses Unto Mankind - The purpose andDuty ofthe Muslim Ummah, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1993b) [trans and ed. Prof. 8.M.A. Rauf] The Education, Markazi Maktaba Islami:Delhi .

-----(1994 3rd ed.) Islam and Ignorance, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1995a 4th ed) The Economic Problems ofMan and Its Solution, Markazi MaktabaIslami: Delhi.

-----(l995b 4th ed.) Nations Rise and Fall- Why? , Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1995c 4thed.) The Prophet ofIslam, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1995d) [1973] Islamic Movement Pre-Requisites for Success, Markazi MaktabaIslami: Delhi.

-----(l996b) The Message OfIslam, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(l996d) Purdah and the Status of Woman in Islam: Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1997a) [Zafar Ishaque Ansari trans.] An Introduction to Understanding the Qur 'an,Markazi Maktaba Islatui: Delhi.

------(1997b) Four Basic Qur'anic Terms, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza (1994) The Vanguard ofthe Islamic Revolution - The lama 'at-lIs/ami ofPakistan, LB.Tauris: London.

133


Oberoi, Harjot (1995) 'Mapping ludic Fundamentalisms through Nationalism andModernity' in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. ScottAppleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

Piscatori, James (1994) 'Accounting for Islamic Fundamentalisms' in AccountingforFundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago UniversityPress: Chicago.

Ram, P.R. (ed) (n.d.) Secular Challenge to Communal Politics, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra:Bombay.

Rao, K.L. Seshagiri (1988) 'The Roots of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India: British'Colonialism and Religious Revival' in The Politics ofReligion and Social ChangeReligion and the Political Order, Vol. II, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden,Paragon House: New York.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (1985) RSS Spearheading National Renaissance,Prakashan Vibhag: Bangalore.

Robb, Peter (1995) The Concept ofRace in South Asia, Oxford University Press: NewDelhi.

Said, Edward W. (2001) Orientalism - Western Conceptions ofthe Orient, Penguin: NewDelhi.

Sarkar, Sumit (1996) 'Indian Nationalism and the Politics of Hindutva' , in Making IndiaHindu, David Ludden (ed), Oxford University: Delhi.

Shupe, Anson and Hadden, Jeffrey K (1988) 'Religion and Social Change: The CriticalConnection' in The Politics ofReligion and Social Change - Religion and the PoliticalOrder Vol.!I, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.

Smith, Donald E. (1963) India as a Secular State, Oxford University Press: Bombay.

-----(1966) 'The Political Implications of Asian Religions' in South Asian Politics andReligion, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.

-----(1966) 'Emerging Patterns of Religion and Politics' in South Asian Politics andReligion, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Sindhu, Sahitya (1981) Dr.Hedgewar The Epoch Maker, Rashtrottana Sahitiya:Bangalore.

Srivastava, Harindra (1993) The Epic Sweep ofSavarkar, VD., Savarkar PunruthanSansthan: Delhi.

134


Syed, Anwar (1984) Pakistan - Islam, Politics and National Solidarity, Vanguard:Lahore.

University of Burdwan (1994) Communalism in Contemporary India, University ofBurdwan.

Van de Veer, Peter (1994) , Hindu Nationalism and the Discourse of Modernity: TheVishva Hindu Parishad' in Accounting/or Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Martyand R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.

135


APPENDIX I

Source: www.rss.org

Since its inception in 1925, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has now spreadover 30,000 places -- including both in Bharat and outside Bharat. No section orgroup in the society, students, traders, artisans, etc., has been left out of its fold.Many full-time swayamsevaks (volunteers) have been working relentlesslessand selflessly for a dynamic and positive transformation of the Bharatiyasociety, The sustained efforts have had their desired effect.

The Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (VKA) has been runningschools and hospitals in the rural and tribal areas. For example, the villageTayning (in Nagaland) has a school, an associated hostel and a medical centreoperated by the Ashram with the assistance of Heraka Naga Leaders. VKA has808 full-time workers, executing more than 6000 projects.

Education in rural area~ occupies a place of importance in the scheme calledVidya Bharati (VB). This scheme runs about 6500 schools across Bharat, andhas about 53,000 teachers all over the country. The number of "one teacher oneschool" type of institutions in the far-flung vanvasi areas are growing fast. Theresidential school in Haflong in North Cachar Hills district has 150 studentsdrawn from 20 janajaati groups comprising Nagas and others. The BharatiyaShikshan Mandai (BSK) has about 26,000 active workers, almost half ofwhom are women.

The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, popularly known as the ABVP, isthe largest University organization today. ABVP has not just undertaken thetask of conducting reforms at the University level, but has attempted to generateawareness regarding the national problems among students as well. The role ofABVP in bringing the Assam problem to all-Bharat level is significant. TheABVP workers are actively engaged in apprising the Bihar Government, thepress and people about the growing threat from Bangladesh infiltration. TheABVP has a membership exceeding 750,000; 3091 chapters in 126 (out of 170)universities with 289 full-time workers. As a special mention, 600 ABVPworkers devoted their time and effort in providing succor and help during theLatur Earthquake. Most recently, an infanticide survey project in Tamilnaduwas carried out and programs were convened to educate the people as regardsthe associated ills.

Social transformation, upliftment of the poor, enhancing the self-esteem of thedowntrodden occurs with proper samskars imparted by various serviceactivities. Seva Bharati is dedicated for such a cause. For example, SevaBharati of Delhi has over 200 projects, with baalwadis, baalsamskar kendras,tailoring classes, coaching classes, medicare centres, kirtan mandalis, nightschools, reading rooms, etc. covering about 75 slum areas. More than 250

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies ~

projects have been launched, with a participation of about 150,000 Sanghkaryakartas.

Akhil Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), a labour organization, encouragesexcellence ofperformance whether in production or in rendering service. Therehave been a number of instances where the co-operation of BMS Unions havehelped the management to get over their troubles and run the industryefficiently. This organization has about 3400 unions with a 4.5 millionmembership across the country.

Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), over the years, has emerged as a majorpeasant force in the provinces like Gujarat and Andhra and is making rapidstrides in other provinces as well. Successful agitations have been launched bythe BKS to get fanners' grievances redressed and their legitimate demandsfulfilled. The uniqueness of the BKS movement lies in the detailed study andconstructive approach in solving agricultural problems. BKS was the first todemand crop and cattle insurance, which is now accepted by the Central/StateGovernment. BKS is active in 301 districts and 11,000 villages with anmembership of about 0.25 million.

Rashtriya Sikh Sanghat has been fonned for promoting greater cordialitybetween the Sikh community and rest of the Hindu society. Its all-Bharatconvention held at Nagpur in March 1987 presented a beautiful blend of variousshades of enlightened Sikh opinion. The Rashtriya Suraksha Samiti has beenvery active in Punjab to fight the secessionist and anti-national elements. TheSikh Sanghat has 135 coordinating committees.

Our master-artists, trained in traditional skills, could carve out even from thecrudest of stones the magnificent images of the Divine! With the passage oftime, however, this unique tradition began to loose its sublime motivation. Inthis context, Samskar Bharati was concieved to promote originality, creativityand educative content to art. With its units in most states, Samskar Bharati hasorganized several seminars and symposia of artists and literateurs with a view tofmding out how best art could be made to combine healthy entertainment withennobling samskars.

Vigyan Bharati (VB) was established to provide scientific and technologicalknowledge to rural areas, befitting the concept of appropriate technology.Programs and seminars have been organized in engineering and medical schoolsillustrating the use of scientific know-how for the bettennent and improvementof life in general, and in rural areas in particular. Groups of volunteersassociated with VB have set up infonnation centres in villages to providenecessary technical advice required by their rural brethem. Family planningprograms have been organized by medical students.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad promotes awareness about Hindu heritage andabou matters of vital importance to the Hindu society in particular, andhumanity in general. The Parishad offers a variety of programs and projects that


cater to the needs of the society. Baal-Vihars, Education Fund, Regional HinduConferences, Youth Camps, presenting Hindu Art Exibitions, Support-a-childproj ects, etc. are some of the activities of the VHP - in Bharat as well as abroad.The VHP, along with the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, is working in 20different countries; for example, Kenya has 53 branches in 31 different places.

Many other schemes and social welfare programs have been inspired andlaunched by the RSS for achieving and producing a dynamic and vibrant Hindusociety but promoting proper samskars through education and service. TheBharatiya Vichar Kendra (based in Kerala), Pandit Deendayal UpadbayaInstitute, and others are involved in organizing discussions, lectures, seminars,essay and elocution competitions, etc. to enhance intellectual understand~ng andderiving solutions to problems facing the contemporary Bharatiya society."Vigil", a forum founded in Madras, represents the vigilant voices concerningpublic welfare. This group is active in projecting nationalist views through themass media and reacting against every injustice. Arranging educative camps forwriters and poets is one of its popular programs.

In 1952, a few swayamsevaks expressed interest in serving the society throughparticipation in politics. They joined nationalist Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjeein founding a new political party rooted in country's ethos called Bharatiyalana Sangh (BJS). The sapling planted by Dr. Mukherjee with the help ofswayamsevaks has grown into a tree in the form of Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP). BJP remains the party of choice for swayamsevaks interested in politicseven though they have a wide variety of choice among mushrooming politicaloutfits in the country. However, overall percentage of swayamsevaksparticipating in politics remain negligible.

There are numerous, literally hundreds, of other programs and projects inspiredby RSS, andlor by its allied and scion organizations, pervading all aspects ofsocial and national life. They are simply too many to mention. However,hopefully, the above provides sufficient glimpse of RSS activities -- a steptowards fulfilling the dream and vision of a better, peaceful and harmonioussociety.

Date post:	11-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	saleem-khan-miankhel-lohani
View:	43 times
Download:	3 times

masters on islamist and hindutva thinkers

Documents