Essentials of Hindutva, Section VI

[p. 91] The words हिंदुत्व and Hinduism being both of them derived from the word हिंदु must necessarily be understood to refer to the whole of the Hindu people. Any definition of Hinduism that leaves out any important section of our people and forces them either to play false to their convictions or to go outside the pale of हिंदुत्व stands self condemned. Hinduism means the system of religious beliefs found common amongst the Hindu people. And the only way to find out what those religious beliefs of the Hindus are, i.e., what constitutes Hinduism, you must first define a Hindu. But forgetting this chief implication of the word Hinduism which clearly presupposes an independent conception of a Hindu, many a people go about to determine the essentials of Hinduism and finding none so satisfactory as to include, without overlapping, all our Hindu communities come to the desperate conclusion—which does not satisfy them either,—that therefore those communities are not Hindus at all! because,—not that the definition they had framed is open to the fault of exclusion but because those communities do not subject themselves to the required tenets which these gentleman have thought it fit to label as “Hinduism”! This way of answering the question ‘who is a Hindu’ is really preposterous and has given rise to so much of bitterness amongst some, of our brethren of the अवैदिक school of thought, the शिखs the जैनs, the देवसमाजीs and even our patriotic and progressive आर्यसमाजीs. “Who is a Hindu?”—he, who is subject to the tenets of [p. 92] Hinduism. Very well. What is Hinduism?—those tenets in which the Hindus are subjected! This is very nearly argued in a circle and can never lead to a satisfactory solution. Many of our friends who have been on this wrong track have come back to tell us "there is no such people as Hindus at all!" If some Indian, as gifted as that Englishman who first coined the word Hinduism, coins a parallel word "Englishism" proceeds to find out the underlying unity of beliefs among the English people, gets disgusted with thousands of sects and societies from the Jews to the Jacobins, from Trinity to Utility, and comes out to announce that "there are no such people as the English at all" he would not make himself more ridiculous than those who declare in cold print "there is nothing as a Hindu people." Any one who wants to see what a confusion of thought prevails on the point and how the failure to analyse separately the two terms हिंदुत्व and Hinduism renders that confusion worst confounded may do well to go through the booklet 'Essentials of Hinduism' published by the enterprising 'Natesan & Co'.

Hinduism means the 'ism' of the Hindus; and as the word Hindu has been derived from the word सिंधु, the Indus meaning primarily all the people who reside on the land that extends from सिंधु to सिंधु, Hinduism must necessarily mean the religion or the religions that are peculiar and native to this land and this people. If we are unable to reduce the different tenets and beliefs to a single system of religion then the only way would be to cease to maintain that Hinduism is a system and to say that it is a set of systems consistent [p. 93] with, or if you like contradictory or even conflicting with, each other. But in no case can you advance this your failure to determine the meaning of Hinduism as a ground to doubt the existence of a Hindu nation itself, or worse still to commit sacrilege in hurting the feelings of our अवैदिक Hindu brethren and वैदिक Hindu brethren alike, by relegating any of them to the Non-Hindu pale.

The limits of this essay do not permit us to determine the nature or the essentials of Hinduism or to try to discuss it at any great length. As we have shown above the enquiry into what is Hinduism can only begin after the question 'who is a Hindu' is rightly answered by determining the essentials of हिंदुत्व; and as it is only with these essentials of हिंदुत्व, which enable us to know 'who is a Hindu,' that this our present enquiry is concerned, the discussion of Hinduism falls necessarily outside of our scope. We have to take cognizance of it only so far as it trespasses in the field of our special charge. Hinduism is a word that properly speaking should be applied to all the religious beliefs that the different communities of the Hindu people hold. But it is generally applied to that system of religion which the majority of the Hindu people follow. It is natural that a religion or a country or a community should derive its name from the characteristic feature which is common to an overwhelming majority that constitutes or contributes to it. It is also convenient for easy reference or parlance. But a convenient term that is not only delusive but harmful and positively misleading should not any longer be allowed to blind our judgment. The majority [p. 94] of the Hindus contributes to that system of religion which could fitly be described by the attribute that constitutes its special feature, as 'श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणोक्त" धर्म or सनातनधर्म. They would not object if it even be called वैदिक धर्म. But besides these there are other Hindus who reject, either partly or wholly, the authority—some of the पुराणs, some of the स्मृतिs and some of the श्रुतिs themselves. But if you identify the religion of the Hindus with the religion of the majority only and call it orthodox Hinduism, then the different heterodox communities, being Hindus themselves rightly resent this usurpation of हिंदुत्व by the majority, as well as their unjustifiable exclusion. The religion of the minorities also requires a name. But if you call the so-called orthodox religion alone as Hinduism then naturally it follows that the religion of the so called heterodox is not Hinduism! The next most fatal step being that therefore those sections are not Hindus at all!! But this inference seems as staggering even to those who had unwillingly given whole hearted support to the premises which have made it logically inevitable that while hating to own it they hardly know how to avoid arriving at it. And thus we find that while millions of our Sikhs, Jains, Lingayats, several Samajis and others would deeply resent to be told that they—whose fathers' fathers up to the tenth generations had the blood of Hindus in their veins—had suddenly ceased to be Hindus!—yet a section amongst them takes it most emphatically for granted that they had been faced with a choice that either they should consent to be a party to those customs and beliefs [p. 95] which they had in their puritanic or progressive zeal rejected as superstitions, or they should cease to belong to that race to which their forefathers belonged.

All this bitterness is mostly due to the wrong use of the word Hinduism to denote the religion of the majority only. Either the word should be restored to its proper significance to denote the religions of all Hindus or if you fail to do that it should be dropped altogether. The religion of the majority of the Hindus could be best denoted by the ancient accepted appellation, the सनातन धर्म or the श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणोक्त धर्म or the वैदिक धर्म; while the religions of the remaining Hindus would continue to be denoted by their respective and accepted names शीख धर्म or आर्य धर्म or जैन धर्म or बुद्ध धर्म. Whenever the necessity of denoting these धर्मs as a whole arises then alone we may be justified in denoting them by the generic term हिंदु धर्म or Hinduism. Thus there would be no loss either in clearness, or in conciseness but on the other hand a gain both in precision and unambiguity which by removing the cause of suspicion in our minor communities and resentment in the major ones would once more unite as all Hindus under our ancient banner representing a common race and a common civilization.

The earliest records that we have got of the religious beliefs of any Indian community—not to speak of mankind itself—are the Vedas. The Vedic nation of the सप्तसिंधुs was subdivided into many a tribe and class. But although the majority then held a faith that we for simplicity call Vedic religion, yet it was not contributed to by an important [p. 96] minority of the सिंधुs themselves. The पाणिs, the दासs, the व्रात्यs and many others from time to time seem to have either seceded from or never belonged to the orthodox church and yet racially and nationally they were conscious of being a people by themselves. There was such a thing as Vedic religion, but it could not be even then identified with सिंधु-धर्म; for the latter term, had it been coined, would have naturally meant the set of religions prevailing in सप्तसिंधुs, orthodox as well as heterodox. By a process of elimination and assimilation the race of the सिंधुs at last grew into the race of हिंदुs—and the land of the सिंधुs i.e. सिंधुस्थान, into the land of the हिंदुs i.e. हिंदुस्थान. While their orthodox and the heterodox schools of religions have,—having tested much, dared much and known much,—having subjected to the most searching examination possible till then, all that lay between the grandest and the tiniest, from the atom to the Atman, from the परमाणु to the परब्रह्म,—having sounded the deepest secrets of thoughts and having sored to the highest altitudes of Ecstasy,—given birth to a synthesis that sympathises with all aspirants towards truth from the Monist to the Atheist. Truth its goal, Realization its method. It is neither Vedic nor non-Vedic, it is both. It is the veritable science of religion applied. This is हिंदुधर्म—the conclusion of the conclusions arrived at by harmonising the detailed experiences of all the schools of religious thought—वैदिक, सनातनी, जैन, बौद्ध, शीख or देवसमाजी. Each one and every one of those systems or sects which are the direct descendants & developments of the religious beliefs वैदिक and अवैदिक, that obtained in the land of the सप्तसिंधुs [p. 97] or in the other unrecorded communities in other parts of India in the Vedic period, belongs to and is a part integral of हिंदुधर्म.

Therefore the वैदिक or the सनातन धर्म itself is merely a sect of Hinduism or हिंदुधर्म—however over-whelming be the majority that contributes to its tenets. It was a definition of this सनातन धर्म which the late Lokamanya Tilak framed in the famous verses “प्रामाण्यबुद्धिर्वेदेषु साधनानामनेकता । उपास्यानामनियम एतर्द्धमस्य लक्षणम् ॥” In a learned article that he had contributed to the चित्रमयजगत्, which bears the mark of his deep erudition and insight, the Lokamanya in an attempt to develop this more or less negative definition into a positive one, had clearly suggested that he had an eye, not on हिंदुत्व as such but, only on what was popularly called हिंदुधर्म; and had also admitted that it could hardly include in its sweep the आर्यसमाजीs and other sects which never the less are racially and nationally Hindus of Hindus. That definition, excellent so far as it goes, is in fact not a definition of हिंदुधर्म, much less of हिंदुत्व, but of सनातन धर्म—the श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणोक्त sect, which being the most popular of all sects of हिंदुधर्म was naturally but loosely mistaken for हिंदुधर्म itself.

Thus हिंदुधर्म being etymologically as well as actually and in its religious aspects only, (for धर्म is not merely religion) the religion of the Hindus, it necessarily partakes of all the essentials that characterise a Hindu. We have found that the first important essential qualification of a Hindu is—that, to him the land that extends from सिंधु to सिंधु is the [p. 98] पितृभू, the मातृभू, the land of his patriarchs and forefathers. The system or set of religions which we call हिंदुधर्म—वैदिक and अवैदिक--are as truly the children of this soil as the men whose thoughts they are or who "saw" the Truth revealed in them. To हिंदुधर्म with all its sects and systems this land सिंधुस्थान is the land of its revelation—the land of its birth on this human plane. As the Ganges, though flowing out of the lotus feet of Vishnu himself is even to the most orthodox devotee and mystic so far as human plane is concerned, the daughter of the Himalayas, even so, this land is the birth-place—the मातृभू and the पितृभू—of that तत्वज्ञान which in its religious aspect is signified as हिंदुधर्म. The second most important essential of हिंदुत्व is that a Hindu is a descendant of Hindu parents, claims to have the blood of the ancient सिंधुs and the race that sprang from them in his veins. This also is true of the different schools of religion of the Hindus. For, they too being either founded by or revealed to the Hindu sages and seers, are the moral and cultural and spiritual descendants and development of the Thought of the सप्तसिंधुs, through the process of assimilation and elimination, as we are of their Seed. Not only is हिंदुधर्म the growth of the natural environments and of the thought of the Hindus but also of the संस्कृति or culture of the Hindus. The environmental frames in which its scenes, whether of the वैदिक period, or of बौद्ध, जैन or any extremely modern ones of चैतन्य, चक्रधर, बसव, नानक, दयानंद or राजा राममोहन, are set, the technical terms and the language that furnished expression to its highest revelation and ecstacies, its mythology and its philosophy, the conceptions [p. 99] it controverted and the conceptions it adopted, have indelible stamp of Hindu culture, of Hindu संस्कृति, impressed upon them. हिंदुधर्म of all shades and schools, lives and grows and has its being in the atmosphere of Hindu culture, and the धर्म of a Hindu being so completely identified with the land of the Hindus, this land to him is not only a पितृभू but a पुण्यभू, not only a fatherland but a holy land.

Yes; this भारतभूमि, this सिंधुस्थान, this land of ours that stretches from सिंधु to सिंधु is our पुण्यभूमि, for it was in this land that the Founders of our faith and the Seers to whom 'वेद' the Knowledge was revealed, from वैदिक seers to दयानंद, from जिन to महावीर, from बुद्ध to नागसेन, from नानक to गोविंद, from बंदा to बसव, from चक्रधर to चैतन्य, from रामदास to राममोहन, our Gurus and Godmen were born and bred. The very dust of its paths echoes the footfalls of our Prophets and Gurus. Sacred are its rivers, hallowed its groves, for it was either on their moonlit ghats or under their eventide long shadows, that the deepest problems of life, of man, soul and God, of ब्रह्म and माया, were debated and discussed by a बुद्ध or a शंकर. Ah! every hill and dell instinct with memories of a कपिल or a व्यास, शंकर or रामदास. Here भगीरथ rules, there कुरुक्षेत्र lies. Here रामचंद्र made his first halt of an exile, there जानकी saw the golden deer and fondly pressed her lover to kill it. Here the divine cowherd played on his flute that made every heart in गोकुल dance in harmony as if in a hypnotised sleep. Here is बोधिवृक्ष, here the deer park. Here महावीर entered निर्वाण. Here stood crowds of worshippers amongst whom नानक sat and sang the आरती [p. 100] “गगन थाल रविचंद दीपक बने!” Here गोपीचंद the king took on vows of गोपीचंद the जोगी and with a bowl in his hand knocked at his sister's door for handful of alms! Here the son of बंदाबहादुर was hacked to pieces before the eyes of his father and the young bleeding heart of the son thrust in the father's mouth for the fault of dying as a Hindu! Every stone here has a story of martyrdom to tell! Every inch of thy soil, Oh mother! has been a sacrificial ground! Not only 'where the कृष्णसार is found' but from काश्मीर to सिंहल it is 'यज्ञीयभूमि,' sanctified with a ज्ञानयज्ञ or आत्मयज्ञ. So to every Hindu, from the संताळ to the साधु this भारतभूमि, this सिंधुस्थान, is at once a पितृभू and a पुण्यभू.

That is why in the case of some of our Mohamedan or Christian countrymen who had originally been forcibly converted to Non-Hindu religion and who consequently have inherited, along with Hindus, a common Father-land and greater part of the wealth of common culture—language law, customs, folklore and history—are not and cannot be recognized as Hindus. For though हिंदुस्थान to them is पितृभू as to any other हिंदु yet it is not to them a पुण्यभू too. Their Holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided. Nay, if some of them be really believing what they profess to do, then there can be no choice—they must to a man set their Holy-land above their Father-land in their love and allegiance. That is but natural. We are not [p. 101] condemning nor are we lamenting. We are simply telling facts as they stand. We have tried to determine the essentials of हिंदुत्व and in doing so we have discovered that the Bohras and such other Mohamadan or Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of हिंदुत्व but one: and that is that they do not look upon India as their Holyland.

It is not a question of embracing any doctrine propounding any new theory of the interpretation of God and Soul and Man. For we honestly believe that the Hindu Thought—we are not speaking of any religion which is dogma—has exhausted the very possibilities of human speculation as to the nature of the Unknown—if not the Unknowable, or the nature of the relation between that and thou. Are you a monist—a monotheist—a pantheist—an atheist—an agnostic? Here is ample room, oh soul! whatever thou art, to live and grow to thy fullest height and satisfaction in this Temple of temples, that stands on no personal foundation, but on the broad and deep and strong foundation of Truth. Why goest then to fill thy little pitcher to wells far off, when thou standest on the banks of the crystal-streamed Ganges herself? Does not the blood in your veins, oh brother, of our common fore-fathers cry aloud with the recollections of the dear old scenes and les from which they were so cruelly snatched away at the point of sword? Then come ye back to the fold of your brothers and sisters who with arms extended are standing at the open gate to welcome you—their long lost kith and kin. Where can you find more freedom of worship than in this [p. 102] land where a चार्वाक could preach atheism from the steps of the temple of महाकाल !—more freedom of social organisation than in the Hindu society where from the Patnas of Orissa to the Pandits of Benares, from the संताळs to the साधुs, each can develop a distinct social type of polity or organize a new one. Verily यदेहास्ति न सर्वत्र यन्नेहास्ति न कुत्रचित् । Whatever could be found in the world is found here too. And if anything is not found here it could be founded no where. Ye, who by race, by blood, by culture, by nationality possess almost all the essentials of हिंदुत्व and had been forcibly snatched out of our ancestral Home by the hand of Violence—ye have only to render whole hearted love to our common Mother and recognize her not only as पितृभू but even as a पुण्यभू, and ye would be most welcome to the Hindu fold.

This is a choice which our country-men and our old kiths and kin the Bohras, Khojas, Mamons and other Mohamedan and Christians communities are free to make—a choice again which must be a choice of love. But as long as they are not minded thus, so long they cannot be recognized as Hindus. We are it must be remembered, trying to analyse and determine the essentials of हिंदुत्व as that word is actually understood to signify and would not be justified to strain it in its application to suit any preconceived notions or party convenience.

A Hindu therefore, to sum up the conclusions arrived at is he who looks upon the land that extends from सिंधु to सिंधु, from the Indus to the Seas, as the land of his forefathers—his पितृभू; who inherits the blood of that race whose first discernible source could be traced to the Vedic सप्तसिंधुs [p. 103] and which on its onward march, assimilating much that was incorporated 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 their common classic language the संस्कृत and represented by a common history, a common literature, art and architecture, law and jurisprudence, rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, fairs and festivals; and who above all addresses this land, this सिंधुस्थान, as his पुण्यभू, as his Holyland—the land of his prophets and seers, of his godmen and gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage. These are the essentials of हिंदुत्व—a common राष्ट्र, a common जाति, and a common संस्कृति. All these essentials could best be summed up by stating in brief that he is a हिंदु to whom सिंधुस्थान is not only a पितृभू but also a पुण्यभू. For the first two essentials of हिंदुत्व—राष्ट्र and जाति—are clearly denoted and connoted by the word पितृभू: while the third essential of संस्कृति is pre-eminently implied by the word पुण्यभू: as it is precisely संस्कृति including संस्कारs i.e., rites and rituals ceremonies and sacraments, that makes a land a Holyland. To make the definition more handy, we may be allowed to compress it in a couplet :—

आसिंधु सिंधुपर्यंता यस्य भारतभूमिका पितृभूः पुण्यभूश्चैव स वै हिंदुरितिस्मृतः ॥