Presidential Address to the Hindu Mahasabha, Ahmedabad

[p. 3] Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you most cordially for the trust you have placed in me in calling upon me to preside on this 19th Session of the Hindu Mahasabha. I don't take it so much as an honour bestowed upon me by my nation for service rendered in the past as a command to dedicate whatever strength is still left in me to the Sacred Cause of defending Hindudom and Hindustan-our common Motherland and our common Holyland, and pressing on the fight for our National Freedom. So far as the Hindus are concerned there can be no distinction nor conflict in the least between our Communal and National duties, as the best interests of the Hindudom are simply identified with best interests of Hindustan as a whole. Hindudom cannot advance or fulfil its lifemission unless and until our Motherland is set free and consolidated into an Indian State in which all our countrymen to whatever religion or sect or race they belong are treated with perfect equality and none allowed to dominate others or is deprived of his just and equal rights of free citizenship as long as everyone discharges the common obligations and duties which one owes to the Indian Nation as a whole. The truer a Hindu is to himself as a Hindu he must inevitably grow a truer National as well. I shall substantiate this point later on as I proceed.

[…] Greetings to Nepal and Hindus abroad; Hindusthan must remain one and indivisible.

The definition of the word 'Hindu'

As a whole superstructure of the mission and the function of the Hindu Mahasabha rests on the correct definition of the word 'Hindu,' we must first of all make it clear what 'Hindutva' really means. Once the scope and the meaning of the word is defined and understood, a number of misgivings in our own camp are easily removed, a number of misunderstandings and objections raised against us from the camp of our opponents are met and silenced. Fortunately for us, after a lot of wandering in wilderness, a definition of the word Hindu which is not only historically and logically as sound as is possible in the cases of such comprehensive terms, but is also eminently workable is already hit upon when 'Hindutva' was defined as :-

।। आसिंधूसिंधूपर्यता यस्य भारतभूमिका ।।

।। पितृ भूःपुण्यभूयैश्चैव स वै हिंदुरितिस्मृतः ।।

'Everyone who regards and claims this Bharatbhoomi from the Indus to the Seas as his Fatherland and Holyland is a Hindu. Here I must point out that it is rather loose to say that any person professing any religion of Indian origin is a Hindu. Because that is only one aspect of Hindutva. The second and equally essential constituent of the concept of Hindutva cannot be ignored if we want to save the definition from getting overlapping and unreal. It is not enough that a person should profess any religion of Indian origin, i.e., Hindusthan as his [p. 5] पुण्यभू his Holyland, but he must also recognise it as his पितृ भू too, his Fatherland as well. As this is no place for going into the whole discussion of the pros and cons of the question, all I can do here is to refer to my book 'Hindutva' in which I have set forth all arguments and expounded the proposition at great length. I shall content myself at present by stating that Hindudom is bound and marked out as a people and a nation by themselves not by the only tie of a common Holyland in which their religion took birth but by the ties of a common culture, a common language, a common history and essentially of a common fatherland as well. It is these two constituents taken together that constitute our Hindutva and distinguish us from any other people in the world. That is why the Japanese and the Chinese, for example, do not and cannot regard themselves as fully identified with the Hindus. Both of them regard our Hindusthan as their Holyland, the land which was the cradle of their religion, but they do not and cannot look upon Hindusthan as their fatherland too. They are our co-religionists; but are not and cannot be our countrymen too. We Hindus are not only co-religionists, but even countrymen of each other. The Japanese and the Chinese have a different ancestry, language, culture, history and country of their own, which are not so integrally bound up with us as to constitute a common national life. In a religious assembly of the Hindus, in any Hindu Dharma-Mahasabha they can join with us as our brothers-in-faith having a common Holyland. But they will not and cannot take a common part or have a common interest in a Hindu Mahasabha which unites Hindus together and represent their national life. A definition must in the main respond to reality. Just as by the first constituent of Hindutva, the possession of a common Holyland-the Indian Mahommedans, Jews, Christians, Parsees, etc. are excluded from claiming themselves as Hindus which in reality also they do not,-in spite of their recognising Hindusthan as their fatherland, so also on the other hand the second constituent of the definition that of possessing a common fatherland exclude the Japanese, the Chinese and others from the Hindu fold in spite of the fact of their having a Holyland in common with us. The above definition had already been adopted by number of prominent Hindu-sabhas such as the Nagpur, Poona, Ratnagiri Hindu-sabhas, and others. The Hindu Mahasabha also had in view this very definition when the word Hindu was rather loosely explained in its present constitution as ' one who profess any religion of Indian origin.' I submit that the time has come when we should be more accurate and replace that partial description by regular definition and incorporate in the constitution the full verse itself translating it in the precise terms as rendered above.

[…] Savarkar on the correct use of the word 'Hindu' and the Mahasabha as a national body.

The Hindus are a Nation by themselves

Some cavil at the position I have taken that the Hindu Mahasabha as I understand its mission, is pre-eminently a national body and challenge me-'How the Hindus who differ so-much amongst themselves in every detail of life could at all be called a nation as such ?' To them my reply is that no people on the earth are so homogenous as to present perfect uniformity in language, culture, race and religion. A people is marked out a nation by themselves not so much by the absence of any heterogeneous differences amongst themselves as by the fact of their differing from other peoples more markedly than they differ amongst themselves. Even those who deny the fact that the Hindus could be called a nation by themselves, do recognise Great Britain, the United States, Russia, Germany and other peoples as nations. What is the test by which those peoples are called nations by themselves ? Take Great Britain as an example. There are at any rate three different languages there; they have fought amongst themselves dreadfully in the past, there are to [p. 7] be found the traces of different seeds and bloods and race. If you say that in spite of it all they are a nation because they possess a common country, a common language, a common culture and common Holyland then the Hindus too possess a common country so well marked out as Hindusthan, a common language the Sanskrit from which all their current languages are derived or are nourished and which forms even today the common language of their Scriptures and literature and which is held in esteem as the sacred reservoir of ancient scriptures and the tongue of their forefathers. By 'Anuloma' and 'Pratiloma' marriages their seed and blood continued to get commingled ever since the days of Manu. Their social festivals and cultural forms are not less common than those we find in England. They possess a common Holyland. The Vedic Rishis are their common pride, their Grammarians Panini and Patanjali, their Poets Bhavabhooti and Kalidas, their heroes Shri Ram and Shri Krishna, Shivaji and Pratap, Guru Govind and Banda are a source of common inspiration. Their Prophets Buddha and Mahaveer, Kanad and Shankar, are held in common esteem. Like their ancient and sacred language-the Sanskrit-their scripts also are fashioned on the same basis and the Nagari script has been the common vehicle of their sacred writings since centuries in the past. Their ancient and modern history is common. They have friends and enemies in common. They have faced common dangers and won victories in common. One in national glory and one in national disasters, one in national despairs and one in national hope and Hindus are welded together during aeons of a common life and a common habitat. Above all the Hindus are bound together by the dearest, most sacred and most enduring bonds of a common Fatherland and a common Holyland, and these two being identified with one and the same country our Bharatbhumi, our India, the National Oneness and homogeneity of the Hindus have been doubly sure. If the United States with the warring crowds of Negroes, Germans and Anglo-saxons, with a common past not exceeding four or five centuries put together can be called a nation-then the Hindus must be entitled to be recognized as a nation par excellence. Verily the Hindus as a people differ most markedly from any other people in the world than they differ amongst themselves. All tests whatsoever of a common country, race, religion, and language that go to entitle a people to form a nation, entitle the Hindus with greater emphasis to that claim. And whatever differences divide the Hindus amongst themselves are rapidly disappearing owing to their awakening of the national consciousness and the Sanghatan and the social reform movements of today. Therefore the Hindu Mahasabha that has, as formulated in its current constitution, set before itself the task of 'the maintenance, protection and promotion of the Hindu race, culture and civilization for the advancement and glory of "Hindu Rashtra' is pre-eminently a national body represent the Hindu Nation as a whole.

[…] Savarkar answers the charge of parochialism and contrasts Hindu and Muslim loyalty to India.

But what does this Independence of India -this स्वराज्य or स्वातंत्र्य mean ?

In common parlance स्वराज्य is understood as the political Freedom of our country, of our land, the independence of the geographical unit called India. But the time has come when these expressions must be fully analysed and understood. A country or a geographical unit does not in itself constitute a nation. Our country is endeared to us because it has been the abode of our race, our people, our dearest and nearest relations and as such is only metaphorically referred to, to express our national being. The independence of India means, therefore, the independence of our people, our race, our nation. Therefore Indian swarajya or Indian swatantrya means, as far as the Hindu Nation is concerned, the political independence of the Hindus, the freedom which would enable them to grow to their full height.

[…] Savarkar argues that India is dear as the home of the Hindu people, not as land.

The real meaning of swarajya then, is not merely the geographical independence of the bit of earth called India. To the Hindus independence of Hindusthan can only be worth having if that ensures their Hindutva-their religious, racial and cultural identity. We are not out to fight and die for a 'swarajya' which could only be had at the cost of our 'swatva' our Hindutva itself !

A united Indian State and the Co-operation of the Minorities

So far as स्वराज्य in this right sense is concerned, the Hindus have ever been in the forefront in the movement and struggle for Indian independence and for founding a united Indian State. It is they who first dreamt of a united Indian State. It is the Hindus again who have by their sacrifices and struggle brought it within the scope of practical politics of today. Taking into account their present strength and weakness the Hindus have ever been willing to secure the co-operation of all non-Hindu sections of their countrymen in this common struggle with a view to establish a common and united Indian State. In spite of their overwhelming majority in India, in spite of the consciousness that it is they who have borne the brunt of the fight, struggled single-handed down to this day while the other non-Hindu sections and especially the Mohammedans who are nowhere to be found while the national struggle goes on and are everywhere to be found in the forefront at the time of reaping the fruits of that struggle-in spite of all this the Hindus are willing to form a common united Indian Nation and do not advance any special claims, privileges or rights reserved only for themselves over and above the non-Hindu section in Hindusthan.

Let the Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinctions whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognizance be taken whatsoever of man's being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian State be treated according to their individual worth irrespective of their religious or racial percentage in the general population. Let that language and script be the national language and script of that Indian state which are understood by the overwhelming majority of the people as happens in every other state in the world, i.e., in England or the United States of America and let no religious bias be allowed to tamper with that language and script with an enforced and perverse hybridism whatsoever. Let 'one man one vote' be the general rule irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion. If such an Indian State is kept in view the Hindu Sanghatanists will, in the interest of the Hindu Sanghatan itself, be the first to offer their wholehearted loyalty to it. I for one and thousands of the Mahasabhaites like me have set this ideal of an Indian State as our political goal ever since the beginning of our political career and shall continue to work for its consummation to the end of our life. Can any attitude towards an Indian State be more national than that ?

Justice demands that I must plainly proclaim that the mission and policy of the Hindu Mahasabha with regard to an Indian state have been more national than the present-day policy of Indian National Congress itself.

[…] Savarkar attacks the Muslim League's Lucknow demands, rejects courting unity, and discusses other minorities.

Two antagonistic Nations living in India side by side

As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by [p. 14] centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe you can solve them; but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. It is safer to diagnose and treat deep-seated disease than to ignore it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main; the Hindus and the Moslems, in India. And as it has happened in many countries under similar situation in the world the utmost that we can do under the circumstances is to form an Indian State in which none is allowed any special weightage of representation and none is paid an extra-price to buy his loyalty to the State. Mercenaries are paid and bought off, not sons of the Motherland to fight in her defence. The Hindus as a nation are willing to discharge their duty to a common Indian State on equal footing. But if our Moslem countrymen thrust on a communal strife on the Hindus and cherish anti-Indian and extra territorial designs of establishing a Mohammedan Rule or supremacy in India then let the Hindus look to themselves and stand on their own legs and fight singlehanded as best as they can for the liberation of India from any non-Hindu yoke, be it English or Moslem or otherwise.

Vote only for those who pledge to defend Hindutva and are tried Sanghatanists

With this end in view I exhort you all to assert yourselves as the Hindus ! Down with the apologetic attitude that makes some of us feel shy to proclaim themselves as Hindus, as if it was something unnational, something like a disgrace to be born of the line of Shri Ram and Shri Krishna - Shivaji and Pratap and Govind Singh ! We Hindus must have a country of our own in the Solar System and must continue to flourish there as Hindus-descendants of a mighty people. Then up with the Shuddi which has not a religious meaning alone but a political side as well ! Up with Sanghatan for the consummation of which it is simply imperative for now Hindus to capture whatever political power has been wrung out by our efforts in the past under the present Reforms Act. The Mohammedans only vote for those who openly and boldly pledge to guard and aggressively secure rights for the Mohammedan people. But we Hindus commit the suicidal blunder of voting for those who openly declare that they are neither Hindus nor Mohammedans and yet are never tired of recognising Mohammedan organizations and dealing with them and of adjusting compromises in the name of the Hindus, ever against Hindu interests and to unbearable humiliation of the Hindus. You must henceforth vote for those who are not ashamed themselves of being Hindus, openly stand for the Hindus and pledge themselves not to keep burning incense, always at the cost of the Hindus before the fetish of a dishonourable unity-cult. Let the Varnashram Swarajya Sang, the Hindu Mahasabha, Shiromani Sikh Sabhas, the Arya Samajists, the political organizations like the Democratic Swarajya Party in Maharashtra that stand for an honourable unity and a truly national Indian State and the great Ashrams, Sanghas and Jateeya Sabhas, that take their stand on Hindutva form a united Hindu party in the legislatures and let no Hindu vote for a man who is not a Sanghatanist and you will find then that your own ministries will be championing the just cause of our but even the Indian State to come. For truly Hindus are and cannot but be the main stay of our Indian State !

[…] Savarkar promises protection to minorities and recounts past Hindu victories over invaders.

Who knows that some future and more fortunate President of this our Hindu Mahasabha may not be able to rise here, if not in this generation yet in the generation of our sons and proclaim the triumphant news to that session to come that as happened in the case of the Huns and the Greeks and the Shakas in the past there is not a trace left behind to the British domination in our land ! The banner of Hindudom flies supreme on the summits of the Himalayas, Hindusthan is free again and Hindudom triumphant !!