The national life of Bharat is an ancient one. The social life here has been woven round a cultural tradition imbued with common life-ideals stemming out of a common comprehensive life-philosophy. This has been a living tradition since ages, well before the Islamic and Christian invaders stepped on this soil. The thread of inherent unity has never snapped in spite of apparent distinctions and dissensions among castes, creeds, sects and even political kingdoms. The human group, which has been expressing this unified current of life has been popularly known as the "Hindu". The national life in Bharat is therefore the Hindu National Life.

 

 

It is on positive and true understanding that the discussion regarding National Integration should be based. "Integration" is nothing less than strengthening the spirit of identification with this true national mainstream, its tradition and its aspirations.

 

All such works which help nourishing and strengthening this national ethos are "national". All such groups who consider themselves distinct from this national ethos and cherish hopes and aspirations in opposition to the national ones and demand separate rights and privilege for themselves are to be called "communal".

If in their attempt to achieve their separate rights etc., they attack the national society - whether in the form of religious conversion or destruction or desecration of places of worship or insulting the memory of the great sons of this soil or in whatever other manner, such groups should be termed "anti-national."

The Hindu in Bharat can never be termed "communal". He has ever been devoted to Bharat and ready to strive for its progress and uphold its honour. The national life-values of Bharat are indeed derived from the life of Hindus. As such he is the "national" here, and never "communal".

 

 

The expression "communalism of the majority" is totally wrong and misconceived. In a democracy the opinion of the majority has to hold the sway in the day-to-day life of the people. As such it will be but proper to consider the practical conduct of the life of majority as the actual life of the national entity. From this point of view also, efforts to uplift the life of Hindus is national and not communal. The * Note to National Integration council. term "majority communalism" is thus opposed to the spirit of democracy. Under foreign domination, since they were considering the entire people as their slaves divided into distinct castes and communities, it was natural that they should be using such terms as majority and minority communalism. But under independence, the rule being of majority, to speak of "majority communalism" is opposed to logic, truth and justice.

 

The Hindu always has been showing due respect to all other beliefs. He does not look upon diversity in worship as something incompatible with national unity. He opposes at times the attitude of adopting separatist policy in material life under the pretext of laying maximum emphasis on religion and also the demands for special privileges which cause injury to national life. In fact it is his natural paramount duty to exercise vigilance always and steadfastly oppose all such tendencies.

 

 

It is detrimental to national life to support such tendencies, to adopt the policy of appeasement of such groups by meeting their anti-national demands, to indulge in bargaining with them for temporary ends, and, with a view to appeasing them, cause harm to points of national pride and honour and national interests and beliefs.

It would be a great folly and travesty of truth to term such right tendencies that oppose these perverted anti-national attitudes, as ‘Communalism of Hindus’. It is a sign of pervert intellect. It is in fact the duty of every nationally conscious citizen to oppose such tendencies.

 

Communalism appears in several forms. The non-Hindu groups arraying themselves against the Hindu people - in whose life-stream the Bharatiya nation finds its true expression - are in a way communal. There are communalists in Hindu Society itself, who originally came into existence in the form of creeds as a manifestation of the many-sided Hindu genius, but who later on forgot the source of their inspiration and creation and began to consider themselves as being different from Hindu samaj and dharma, and who on that premise demand separate and exclusive political and economic privileges, and to achieve those demands proclaim themselves to be different form Hindu Society and take to various agitations. Neo-Buddhists and Sikhs are of this type. The third form of communalism is of groups like Dravida Kazhagam and Davidra Munnetra Kazhagam who, on the fallacious assumptions of racial distinctness, claim separation, and who to achieve their ends spread hatred, enmity and violence against the rest of society. The fourth type consists of those who rouse controversies in the name of "touchability" and "untouchability", "Brahmin" and "non-Brahmin" and fan hatred, enmity, selfishness, and demands for special privileges. There is the fifth type, the communalism of linguistic groups, who indulge in spreading aversion, rivalry and hatred against other linguistic neighbours. The term "linguistic minorities" is born out of this tendency. The sixth type of communalism is one of narrow provincial feelings and of adopting unhealthy attitudes towards people from other provinces. South and North, Punjabi and non-Punjabi, Marathi, versus Kannada, Gujarati versus Marathi, Bengal-Bihar-Orrisa difference are of this type. There is the seventh type of communalism which aggravates differences of caste, creed, language, etc., and fans mutual hatred to achieve electoral ends. This is the most dangerous type rampant all over the country, of which many political parties, including the party in power, are guilty. So long as this-the political-type of communalism exists, it is well-nigh impossible to eradicate any other form of communalism. If only this seventh type of communalism is eschewed, then shall we find it less difficult to deal with the other forms. (Only the more prominent types are pointed out here; there may be some more, the minor ones.)

 

 

From the above, it is evident that whereas some types of communalism are bred on the basis of religious creeds, others flourish solely on the basis of selfish secular interests. It is therefore fallacious to say that communalism is the antithesis of secularism. In fact, there will not be usually any conflict in the religious field merely on the basis of diversity in faiths. Conflicts are generated due to mutual rivalry in cornering greater secular gains.

 

 

Logic and history do not bear out either that ideas of dharma are narrow or that economic interests are more comprehensive. Under the religious domain of Christianity, there are several nation-states in America and Europe founded on narrow economic interests. Under the religious expanse of Islam, there are several states based on narrow economic and racial interests. Under one vast Sanatana dharma (which includes under its wings all Vedic, non-Vedic, and other faiths born in this land) there are states like Bharat, Nepal, etc., formed on the basis economic considerations. It is therefore evident that the pursuit of religion gives a broad base whereas economic interests narrow down the relations.

 

Dharma is the eternal law of life, which gives an arrangement for all times and is all-embracing. It is clear from the illustrations given above that within the fold of Dharma particular forms of worship based on vested economic interests may also exist. Over-attachment to small creeds, beliefs and sub-beliefs create parochial feelings and become an instrument for spreading animosity and conflict in the path of achieving equality and harmony of economic and other secular interests. And hence, such over attachment is undesirable.

 

If any one wants to forge unity on the basis of economic interests, ignoring dharma, society, nation, etc., then such unity cannot be achieved in a particular limited piece of land; it can only be done on a global level comprehending all the cross-sections of the entire mankind of diverse economic interests. Then 'National Integration' will have lost all its meaning and purpose.

 

 

While bringing about integration with the nation in its practical life, destruction of distinct ways of worship is not aimed at, only putting an end to undesirable tendencies of exclusiveness and intolerance is aimed at; destruction of languages is not aimed at, but the separatism and the desire to secede born out of language fanaticism is only aimed at.

 

 

Regardless of caste and creed, every individual should be taught that it is the supreme duty of all the people of Bharat to proclaim unhesitatingly the truth of the Hindu Nationhood of Bharat and to make it strong, prosperous, virile and sovereign. Intense devotion to this Nation should be roused in one and all.

While respecting and protecting the religions of non-Hindus, arrangements should be made to impart smaskars to them of love and respect for the tradition, history, life-attitudes, ideals and values of this nation, and to identify their aspirations with those of the nation.

 

 

In secular life all citizens are equal; this principle should be strictly adhered to. We must cry a complete halt to forming groups based on caste, creed, etc., and demanding exclusive rights and privileges in services, financial aids, admission in educational institutions and all such other fields. To talk and think in terms of "minorities" and "communities" should be totally put an end to.

 

A free nation will have its own language for mutual intercourse. Out of several national languages, Hindi has been accepted as the link language from the point of view of its ease and convenience. In the name of making it easy, to make it unintelligible by Urduising it, is to import communalism and communal appeasement into the sovereign independence of the nation. This attitude towards State Language of the nation or to treat it at par with English, which binds our country to the bandwagon of a foreign language, is to strike at the roots of our sublime national ethos. Intense devotion to the nation being the mainstay of Integration, these wrong language policies should at once be discarded.

 

 

We are one country, one society, and one nation, with a community of life-values and secular aspirations and interests; and hence it is natural that the affairs of the nation are governed through a single state of the unitary type. The present federal system generates and feeds separatist feelings. In a way, it negates the truth of a single nationhood and is, therefore, divisive in nature. It must be remedied and the Constitution amended and cleaned so as to establish Unitary Form of Government.

 

 

The present policy of the government towards the attacks and transgressions, such as destruction of places of worship and breaking of idols, cow-slaughter, illegal construction of peer graves, dragah, makbara, cross, in private or public places, stopping religious processions etc. under unjust pretexts, rioting, threatening, etc., is detrimental to Integration in the extreme. Instead of preventing these acts, the policy of supporting and promoting them in a clandestine fashion is only creating more discord. It should therefore be eschewed forthwith and policy of putting an end to such evil practices must be pursued with will and vigour.

 

 

Only in the soil of Bharat have the Hindus pinned their sentiments of dharma. The appeal of the holy places takes him round the entire Bharat, and Bharat only. His material interests also are embedded in Bharat only. As such, this devotion is wholly and solely to Bharat. Hence there can never be any conflict in his mind between Swadharma and Swadesh; there has always been identification between the two. There are no divided loyalties in him. It is impossible to find in him any loyalty to dharma in contradistinction or in opposition to loyalty to country. It is a proof positive that Hindus are a hundred per cent national society here. To call them "communal" and to place them at par with those people whose loyalties are divided and at times questionable is unjust and unwise.

 

 

Conversion of Hindus into other religions is nothing but making them succumb to divided loyalty in place of having undivided and absolute loyalty to the nation. It is dangerous to the security of the nation and the country. It is therefore necessary to put a stop to it. Conversion of an individual does not take place after a serious and comparative study of philosophies by him. It is by exploitation of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, offering of inducements and by deceptive tactics that people are converted. There is no question of a true change of heart involved in this. It is but right that this unjust activity is prohibited. It is a duty we have to discharge towards protecting our brethren in ignorance and poverty.

 

 

Hindu philosophy, being all-comprehensive, has potency to assimilate non-Hindu communities. Pt. Nehru had this in his mind when he said that it is necessary to assimilate Muslims and Christians into Hindu society in the same manner as invaders like Shakas and Hunas were assimilated in the past. In that speech, Pt. Nehru has given the right direction for achieving national unity and for unifying the various creeds of worship and instilling in them a common point of devotion. However, the present attempts are such as to discredit the Hindus and, through the appeasement policy, to make the non-Hindus more aggressive in their already existing aggressive designs. In this way, the heritage and the tradition of Hindus are being insulted, making them imbecile and incapable of defending themselves. This perverted policy is equivalent to not only discarding the correct direction given by Pt. Nehru but even negating it. It is essential that this perversion is set right, and a policy of upholding the honoured place of Hindus, who have been sticking to the path of unflinching national loyalty all along, and integrating others with them in tune with those norms, be followed.

 

 

The committee formed in the name of National Integration has, by giving a scope for several disgruntled groups to air their demands and complaints, roused in them a hope that their divisive demands would be conceded because of the committee’s assurances of finding a way out of communalism and its talk of defining "communalism" with a view to eliminating it. By this the desire to maintain their entities separate may become only more acute in several groups, that is all.

 

Repeated calls for "National Integration" only lead to, and strengthen the undesirable impression that presently it is lamentably lacking. Therefore the very existence of the committee now appears to be against its very basic purpose. As such it is necessary to dissolve it forthwith. It will be a great step in furtherance of "National Integration".

 

 

Realising the national character of Hindu People, the RSS has been making determined efforts to inculcate in them burning devotion for Bharat and its national ethos; kindle in them the spirit of dedication and sterling qualities and character; rouse social consciousness, mutual good-will, love and cooperation among them all; to make them realise that casts, creeds and languages are secondary and that service to the nation is the supreme end and to mould their behaviour accordingly; instil in them a sense of true humility and discipline and train their bodies to be strong and robust so as to shoulder any social responsibility; and thus to create all-round Anushasana in all walks of life and build together all our people into a unified harmonious national whole, extending from Himalayas to Kanyakumari.

 

 

The Sangh has no demands to make. It does not fight for special rights or privileges. It does not compete in electioneering politics, nor has it any desire to share power. As such, it does not also have any such policy. It cherishes no ambitions other than to make our nation organised, prosperous and glorious, and to dedicate our all at its altar. It has no place, therefore, for any hatred or opposition towards any particular caste, creed or party. Being positively Hindu in its outlook, it has equal respect, love and tolerance towards all. The function of state according to Hindu concept is limited to secular matters only. It is against the Hindu faith and tradition to think in terms of exclusive and special rights on the basis of any creed or sect.

 

 

It is clear that this aim of Sangh is the same as re-establishing the integrated feeling of oneness of the nation which has been flowing down since times immemorial. Some suspicions have been roused with regard to this, because, the Government and certain important members of the ruling party, and some other political parties have maliciously described it as subversive. Otherwise, it would have by now succeeded to a large extent in dispelling provincialism, linguistic animosities, casteism, etc,. rampant all around today and there would have been no need to constitute any committee for that purpose.

 

 

The RSS has been working all these years, placing the unshakable faith in its mission of building a strong, reorganised and unified national life and has taken to this path as a sacred vow of duty. By the Grace of Almighty, it shall continue to do so and shall succeed in it at no distant date.

 

 

1. People whose loyalty to the country and her traditions, to her heroes down the centuries, to her security and prosperity, is undivided and unadulterated, are national.

 

2. People who though entertaining such loyalty think in terms of their sect, caste, language or so called race in contradistinction to the rest of the people, and strive for their own limited benefit and enjoyment of political power, for enjoying special rights and privileges not claimed or enjoyed by the general people, and for these purposes envy, hate, oppose and sometimes take recourse even to violent means, are communal.

 

3. (i) Groups whose loyalty is divided and who have loyalties superior to that mentioned in (1) and who in case of conflict of loyalties would disregard, or be indifferent to, the interests of the country, and choose to serve other objects of their faith, are hostiles.

 

(ii) Groups who continue to believe themselves to be aliens, aggressors, victors and erstwhile masters and rulers of the country, are aliens evidently, and when there is a desire to re-establish themselves as such rulers, are also hostile.

4. Those, who though nationals, would, out of some perverted notions, strive to break away from the people as a whole and form themselves into a separate and conflicting state, are anti-national.

 

5. (i) Such of those mentioned in (4) who would not hesitate to join hands with those mentioned in (3) (i) and (ii) to achieve their ends, or would like to, or actually try to, league with any foreign power for these ends, are traitors.

(ii) Political parties, which to gain or retain power, would associate with or give preferential treatment to such as are mentioned in (3) (i) and (ii) & (4) may be classed with (5) (i).

 

(iii) Political parties professing an ideology forming the basis of foreign powers, who would prefer such powers to the country, would tolerate, explain away, justify, or overtly or covertly assist such powers even against the country and in case of their aggression on our country are both traitors and enemies.

Unfortunately all such classes are existing in our holy land, a proper and fearless understanding of which is essential to the building up of a strong integrated national life.

 

In all such groups exceptions are bound to exist. Traitorous individuals amongst the nationals, and patriotic individuals amongst the other groups, may be found. Let us learn to discriminate between individual qualities and psychology of the mass. It is common experience that patriotic individuals in the other groups are swept off their feet when mass frenzy bursts forth. It is this psychology of the mass group as a whole that has to be considered and dealt with on a social, cultural, historical and political basis, keeping the interests of the country before the eyes as the supreme object of achievement. The general law is sufficient to deal with individual cases of perversity or hostility.

 

The interests of (1) are supreme and must be held aloft. (2) and (4) have to be dealt with prudence and strength, sympathy and loving understanding so as to wean them away from their fissiparous activities, likely to be detrimental or dangerous to the country and nation. The others have to be put down with a strong hand by all possible means.

 

 

After the Usha Bhargava episode at Jabalpur, many leaders including Pt. Nehru, have started freely using the term "majority communalism" and accusing the Hindu people of "communalism" and threatening to crush it. It is in this background that the present ‘National Integration Council’ has been formed. So, it gives rise to the suspicion whether under the innocuous veil of ‘National Integration’ a mischievous move is afoot to dub such organisations as are working for the protection and welfare of Hindus as "communal", to break the spirit of self-respect and self-confidence in the Hindu Society thus making it imbecile, and to woo and appease the anti-Hindu communities thus encouraging them in their aggressive designs.

 

 

Failure to carry out an impartial enquiry into Aligarh incidents, and giving a clean chit to the Aligarh University authorities.

 

Under the guise of simplifying Hindi in Akashvani, Urduising it thereby corrupting and making it unintelligible, although it is being used in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution.

Assurance given by the Education Minister of U.P. for the removal from the textbooks of references to our national heroes and the banning of celebration of Hindu festivals in schools.

 

Pursing a policy of not expelling the illegal Muslim infiltrators from East Bengal although such a step is perfectly legal. To advise the West Bengal Government not to protest against the atrocities being perpetrated against the Hindus in East Bengal, and to advance the strange argument that such a step would create a sense of insecurity in the minds of "minorities", i.e., the Muslims, here. These and similar other instances could be quoted to confirm our worst doubts and provide evidence for the policy of Muslim appeasement.

 

A news appeared in papers some time ago that the subcommittee which is now formed would invite the spokesmen of the various "communal" organisations and seek their views. However, the sub-committee itself is formed to lay down the definition of "communalism". Hence, to declare some bodies as "communal" even before defining what "communalism" is, gives room for doubt about its honesty of purpose.

 

Some honourable members of the sub-committee have, on several occasions, named many Hindu personalities and institutions as "communal". This attitude to indulging in allegations even before the meaning of that term is decided casts doubts about the integrity of such persons.

 

Can any honest enquiry be expected of a committee consisting of such persons and born with such background?

Chief Minister of Maharashtra was asked (by the sub-committee) whether he had any intention of carving out a separate state, completely out of the domain of union of India. Asking such question is disgraceful and insulting. It is a proof of the prejudiced minds of the committee members. Can a truthful enquiry be expected form such prejudiced minds?

 

It is said the Council is interested only with the views of political parties. Where, then, is the propriety of inviting the RSS, which has nothing to do with politics?

 

What are the powers of the Council? If it is only a forum for exchange of views and advices without any purpose or use, then would it not be a mere waste of time to indulge in such an exercise?

The Government and the ruling party appear to have a dominating voice in the Council. Under these conditions, would it not be futile to expect an impartial consideration of the issues?