The Honourable President,
The Republic of India,
New Delhi- 110004
Sub: An appeal for scrapping the Article 371 (A-J) in defence of cultural nationalism: Save Hindutva
First of all, we must thank you all for scrapping the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. For the sake of Uniform Civil and Political Code, there should not be any positive or negative discriminatory rules and regulations within the ambit of International Law and jurisprudence.
The subject-matter of the present letter concerns the West-mimicking and hybrid “Constitution” of India, or rather, two specific Articles in it: Article 370 and Article 371 (A-J). As evident from our previous letters addressed to you, we are staunch and sturdy advocates of the Hindutva cultural nationalism as propagated by venerable Guruji M.S. Golwalkar, set against the utterly fake Nehruvian ideal of democratic, territorial nationalism, which implies “…a certain tolerance of others and even of others’ opinions… a certain contemplative tendency and a certain inquisitive search for truth” ⤡.
As against such a Western ideal of imagined territorial nation state, our exclusivist cultural nationalism preaches the ideal of one nation, one language, one culture, one party and one ideology, all meant for the ever-glorious Aryan land of Hindustan that comprises of the present-day India, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, Singapore and Sri Lankan territories. Therefore, our pleas are:
1. Absolute cultural reterritorialization of imaginative geography (in the Vaidantika sense of pratibhasika satya) instead of deterritorialization by constitutional provisions for territorial nationalism;
2. Constitutionally providing relative importance or privilege to some territories by depriving other states ought not to be encouraged for the sake of absolute cultural nationalism as in a sense, homogenized Hindutva is the only plane of immanence (paramarthika satya, cf. Spinoza’s ontological constitution of the world)
This is to request you, despite your busy schedule, to kindly go through the attached document along with hyperlink:
Absolute Cultural Reterritorialization Of Imagi-native Geo-Political Boundaries Instead Of Deterritorialization: The (Il)legitimacy Of Article 371 (A-J) After Scrapping Article 370 Of The Indian Constitution VIEW HERE ⤡
for the elaborated logico-legal and historical views on the two aforementioned requests.
If we are to propagate the ideal of a mono-religious, mono-cultural and mono-lingual nation-statist formation, there is no need for us to look after or care for these variegated regions separately, one by one. They can all be subsumed under one Hindu raṣṭra of Bhāratvarṣa, by doing away with all the disturbing and disrupting inter-group (in-group and out-group) as well as intra-group differAnces (we are differing the semantic differences of imagined boundaries by deferring the conceptual meaning of territorial nationalism).
It is for this very reason that we are kindly and humbly appealing to you, our venerable ācārya, in favour of abrogating Article 371 (A-J) as well, because it is doing more harm to our Hindutvavādī ideal than good. Once it is scrapped and removed, we would be able to fasten the pace of our religious war against non-Hindus, though our honourable Home Minister would not be agreed with our prayer in the context of North-Eastern seven sisters (cf. Won’t scrap Article 371: Shah⤡⤡), we are still emphasizing on the scrapping of Article 371 to subscribe the concept of cultural nationalism. If Article 370 could be scrapped, why would not be the same treatment applicable to the Article 371?
It is noteworthy that doing away with this article is only the first step in our long-term project of “Hinduization” (Non-Hindu, anti-national urban naxal Kancha Ilaiah, writer of a blasphemous treatise Why I am not a Hindu  ⤡, coined this term), the final step being the extermination of the present westernized, Nehruvian, Congressite, anti-nationalist anti-Hindu Constitution of India itself.
We are proud to be Hindu.
Thanking you in anticipation. Yours Obediently,
Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
Mrs. Rupa Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Akhar Bandyopadhyay
1. The Honourable Prime Minister, Government of India
2. The Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India
3. The Honourable Finance Minister, Government of India
4. The Honourable Minister for Road Transport & Highways and the Minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India
5. Prof. Subramanian Swamy, Honourable Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
6. The Honourable Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Government of India
7. The Honourable Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Government of India
Absolute Cultural Reterritorialization Of Imagi-native Geo-Political Boundaries Instead Of Deterritorialization: The (Il)legitimacy Of Article 371 (A-J) After Scrapping Article 370 Of The Indian Constitution
The article questions the legitimacy of Article 371 in connection with the scrapped Article 370 in the context of oligarchic bulldozing of cultural nationalism by the Hindutvavadi government of India. The article covers the history and narratives centering all the eleven states, which are getting “special provisions” under the purview of the Article 371 (A-J).
The article has taken its cue from the works and theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Benedict Anderson, Edward Said and Michel Foucault and methodologically deploys militant strategy of deconstruction.
“He sees a way of dividing the country different from the one used on the ordinary map. He feels tempted, say, to use the name ‘Devonshire’ not for the county with its conventional boundary, but for a region differently bounded. He could express this by saying: ‘Isn’t it absurd to make this a county, to draw the boundaries here?’ But what he says is: ‘The real Devonshire is this’. We could answer: ‘What you want is only a new notation, and by a new notation no facts of geography are changed.’” —Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue Book
Article 370 and 371 were already a part of the Part XXI of the original Indian constitution as framed by the Congressite Constituent Assembly, which commenced from 26th January, 1950. Article 370 was brought in by a treacherous Nehruvian conspiracy to give “special status”, by means of “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”, to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, implying an implicit recognition of their baseless demand for self-autonomy. When the “Instrument of Accession” was signed in 1947, Nehru’s intentions were to retain Kashmir as a part of the Indian Territory only because his father, Motilal Nehru, had a sizeable property in the state, besides the River Jhelum.
Thus, we also declare Kashmir as an integral, indissociable part of this glorious land of the Aryas, not because we are actuated by some kind of vested, worldly interests (vyāvahārika satya or empirical irreal) like that of anti-national Nehru, but solely for the greater spiritual cause (pāramārthika satya) of our Hindu collective crusade. We would not let the Pakistani terrorist beasts enter the territory of our sacred, Hindu fatherland.
As we read in Nehru’s parliamentary speech in 1952: “I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion. We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on field of battle (and)… in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of the J&K.” ⤡
The above Prime Ministerial address in the Lok Sabha clearly indicates how much Nehru appreciated the jihādi tendencies of the Islamic Kashmiris by granting them the provision for a separate constitution through Article 370. What about the Kashmiri Hindus, the Kashmiri Pandits? When will their voices be heard beyond the cacophony of high-decibel “Allahhu-Akbar”?
Though, these types of false reports are found in the funded newspapers:
‘We’re Only Used to Garner Votes’: Why Kashmiri Pandits Have Lost Faith in the BJP VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 9th November © The Wire)
It is also to be noted that Nehru did not encourage plebiscite at Kashmir—he deployed coercive measures. On the other hand in case of Junagadh, a plebiscite was held (20 February 1948), in which 99.95% of the population voted to join India. Only 15 percent (21,606) of Junagadh’s Muslim population voted while 30 percent (179,851) of the non-Muslim population voted. The total number of voters on electoral rolls was 200, 569 and less than 10,000 Muslims voted for India. This is severe hypocrisy on the part of Nehru that he took two different discriminatory measures for two territories.
It took our great NDA government led by the BJP on the 5th August 2019 to do away with this so-called “autonomy” of the Kashmiri people, that lets them engage in all sorts of anti-state, anti-Indian activities. The above Article was indeed scrapped for good. The Hindus will forever remain grateful to you, acarya, for this grand and historic move. Now all the jihadi, terrorist activities motivated by the anti-Hindu Islamic ideology would be under our firm grip. Down with Islam! Hail Hinduism! If there be an “āzādi” to cherish, it is the “azadi” of our Hindu community and of no one else.
The main problem now remains with the adjoining Article 371 (A-J). It also sets up “special provisions” for some eleven states within India, which are mostly from the North East. Why did Nehru and his Gang make these provisions in the first place? Not all of these provisions were formulated during the black era of the Nehruvian regime, but were inserted into the Article through succeeding amendments, mostly enacted in the 1970-1980s by the Congress party itself. As far the harmful secularist intentions of those Congressite law-makers go, these provisions were made to protect, preserve and promote the cultural moorings of the indigenous people of these regions. But pray, why do we need to uphold the sanctity of these so-called individual or unique micro-cultures in the first place? Does not it encourage pluralism, diversity, variety, multiplicity, heterogeneity, differentiation and reterritorialization? If it does so, it will be the duty of us, the crusaders of the Sangh Parivar, to abolish these provisions in order to uphold the single greatest ideal of the homogenous macro-cultural akhand Hindu rastra with uniform civil code (UCC).
It is all a “Do or Die” situation (We do not support the catur baniyā ⤡ who coined this slogan in 1942, since he is the chief reason why we Hindus have to suffer today even within our home-territory! Jai Shaheed Godse!) For us, the Hindus, in this great fatherland of ours. Let us claim back the lost heritage of our pure-blooded ancestors, the Āryas! Bharat Mata Ki Jai!
Let us therefore go through the intricacies of the Article 371 (A-J) in brief:
- Article 371 (1949): Focuses on the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat and secures special protection to them. It was in 1960 that the bilingual state of Bombay (i.e., Mumbai) was bifurcated into two separate states—Maharashtra for the Marathi-speaking people and Gujarat for the Gujarati-speaking people, largely as a result of the secessionist Mahagujarat movement and the Thackeray-led Samyukta Maharashtra movement, (1956)both regionalist to their very core. Special responsibilities are mentioned in this article to set up development boards in regions such as Vidarbha, Marathwada, Saurashtra, Kutchh etc. Even the representation given to such regions or some princely states in the course of the Ranji Trophy (Ranji Trophy teams such as Vidarbha, Baroda, Saurashtra etc., are not states but regions that have been held in highest esteem by the fruits of Nehru’s poison-tree!) matches are also aimed towards giving special accord to their regionalist emotions.
Even so, these provisions in Article 371 did not help diminish the growing demand for linguistic states within the Indian Territory, which led to the establishment a series of Commissions, including: the Linguistic Provinces Commission, JVP Committee (consisting of Nehru, Sardar Patel and P. Sitaramayya) Justice Fazal Ali Committee or the States Reorganization Commission, allunder the dictates of that traitor anti-national “Commissionist” Nehru, again in order to reinstate his ideal of territorial nationalism, the idea that India is essentially a bundle of “territories”; instead, as followers of the holy trinity of Hindutva ideology (This has been stated by Congress MP Dr. Shashi Tharoor with his impeccable English skills ⤡), viz., Golwalkarji, Hedgewarji and Deen Dayal Upadhyayji, we would like to declare that a nation means a “people” and their ancient cultural roots. In the case of India, the cultural roots of our land can only be found in glorious Hinduism and in no other phoren religions.
Rajiv Gandhi, who got brutally killed due to these separatist activities in the southern states, held that the creation of linguistic states has become a mere “tool for politics” and is only another dimension in the incessant struggle of certain groups for commanding political power ⤡.
We have also discovered (after designating Nehru with all the negative epithets in the previous paragraphs) that at the onset, Nehru and Sardar Patel were primarily against the creation of linguistic states or linguistic chauvinism in general as they (rightly) thought it would eventually weaken India’s unity! According to GSV Prasad:
“His [Nehru’s] vision of new independent India rested primarily on creating economically viable and politically integrative states with a proper balance maintained between territorial size of different regions and the national sovereignty and unity of the country. ⤡”
Guruji Golwalkar also agreed, only once, at this point with Nehru in foreseeing the disastrous consequences of linguism, (i.e., territorial nationalism on the basis of “language” as a modular form). Even so, Nehru was strongly in defence of India’s so-called “linguistic pluralism”, which he espoused throughout his life; and yet, later on, Nehru obviously contradicted this earlier stance of his and became the political catalyst of linguistic reorganization (or dissection by ignoring the fuzzy boundaries of linguistic nation states, all of them are basically plurilingual?) of our beloved nation by declaring the intent for granting separate statehood to the Andhra people just a few days after their leader, Potti Sreeramulu, fasted to death in 1952 (Please refer to the section on Articles 371 D and E).
Thus, we must be very careful in analyzing Nehru’s attitude towards linguistic states. In the previous article, GSV Prasad notes:
“Though Nehru was not completely against the creation of linguistic states, he wanted to postpone the new administrative divisions as much as he could. He believed that India was yet to consolidate itself as a nation in real sense. (emphasis added)”
“Nehru’s reluctance for the creation of linguistic states was temporaryand he knew it very well that in the long-run, formation of linguistic states could not be prevented. In the prevailing scenario, his reservations compelled him to keep his ideas of reorganization of states on linguistic basis on hold. (emphasis added)”
Nehru and linguistic States VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on August 03, 2002 ©Frontline)
Should Indian States be Divided on Linguistic Lines? VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 31 October 2017 ©The Quint)
- Article 371-A (13th Amendment Act, 1962): Focuses on the North-eastern state of Nagaland and declares that no act of the Parliament would apply to the state of Nagaland with regard to the so-called “autonomous” religious or cultural practices of the Nagas, or matters relating to the Naga customary laws and practices etc. It was in 1963 (a year after this article got its place in the Constitution) that the State of Nagaland was formed by taking the Naga Hills and Tuensang area out of the state of Assam. This was wholly done to suppress the growing regionalist distress amongst the Nagas after the enumeration of the census that identified different “ethnic groups” (a phoren concept, the term is totally alien to our fatherland) with different linguistic identities by ignoring their in out-group Languages for Wider Communications those are not their household mother-tongues. Before giving Nagaland the status of the 16th state of the Indian Union, it was placed under the control of the Governor of Assam in 1961.
- Article 371-B (22nd Amendment Act, 1969): Focuses on the state of Assam and accordingly the article states that the President may provide for the Constitution and functions of a committee of Legislative Assembly of the state consisting of members elected from the “tribal areas” of Assam. This was also done to ease the separatist tendencies in the Barak Valley region, including the demand for “Bodoland”, consisting of the Bodo people and other indigenous communities of Assam. These separatists or secessionists alleged the Centre for its continuing neglect, domination, subjugation, political, social, cultural, economic exploitation as well as internal colonization. The ULFA demands for a sovereign Assam through armed struggle. The MULTA propagates an Islamic state of Assam. The Asom Gono Parishad fights against the infiltration of ghuspetiyas from Bangladesh and so on. These organizations have been active since a long time, spreading over the decades of the 1960s, ‘70’s and 80’s. This Article 371-B was put inside the Constitution amidst such a situation so that these rising tendencies can be controlled, but the tool failed to reach its motive.
The NDA, led by our BJP, now has brought forth the grand plan of the NPR-NRC-CAA-DPB ⤡ ⤡ in order to correct the deficiencies, crises and problems etc., created by the Congress party across the decades of its unchecked, monopoly control over these areas. Actually all these problems centering the issues of regionalism, linguism etc., are the inevitable consequences of what Rajni Kothari termed as the “Congress System” ⤡, i.e., the all-encompassing, all-pervading power and influence of the Congress party decades after our political independence. These regionalist propensities are also the product of Communist imperialism, or otherwise, state capitalism.
- Article 371-C (27th Amendment Act, 1971): The special provisions under Article 371C in the case of Manipur are quite similar to 371B for the state of Assam. Here, too, the President may provide for the Constitution and functions of a committee of Legislative Assembly of the state, but consisting of members elected from the hilly areas of Manipur. The governor has to submit an annual report every year regarding the administration of these hilly areas.
In 1972 (a year after the article in question got introduced), the political map of Northeast India underwent a major redistribution. The two Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura and the Sub-State of Meghalaya got statehood and the two union territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh (originally known as North-East Frontier Agency—NEFA) came into being. With this, the number of states of the Indian Union increased to 21 (Manipur 19th, Tripura 20th and Meghalaya 21st states of the Indian union respectively).
- Article 371D & E (32nd Amendment Act, 1973; later substituted by The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014): The focus of these two articles is (are) the state(s) of Andhra Pradesh (and Telengana after 2014).
It was in December, 1953 that the Andhra State was created from part of the Madras Presidency, the first state in India formed by the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) by considering “language” as a modular form in the context of print capitalism. After a period of regionalist movement in the region, led by amarjeevi Potti Sreeramulu. In 1956, the Andhra State was merged with the Telugu-speaking area of Hyderabad State to form the new state of Andhra Pradesh. Since even this formation could not curb the regionalist, separatist tendencies, this article was brought through the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973 (a year later, this article was brought in, maybe as an additional safeguard), which later got substituted by The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act in 2014 with the formation of Telengana due to regional, linguistic demands. Articles 371D and E provide Andhra Pradesh (and Telengana) with special provisions especially meant for its economic and educational uplift.
- Article 371F (36th Amendment Act, 1975): Concerns itself with the state of Sikkim. The article specifies the number of members in the Legislative Assembly as well as contains provisions for reserving seats at the same for all sections of population of the state.
Till 1947, Sikkim was an Indian princely state ruled by Chogyal. In 1947, after the lapse of British paramountcy, Sikkim became a ‘protectorate’ of India, whereby the Indian Government assumed responsibility for the defence, external affairs and communications of Sikkim. In 1974, Sikkim expressed its desire for greater association with the Indian republic. Accordingly, the 35th Constitutional Amendment Act (1974) was passed, which introduced a new class of statehood under the constitution by conferring on Sikkim the status of an ‘associate state’ of the Indian Union. For this purpose, a new Article 2A and a new schedule (Tenth Schedule containing the terms and conditions of association) were inserted in the Indian Constitution. This experiment, however, proved to be a failure as it did not fully satisfy the autonomous aspirations of the people of Sikkim. In a referendum held in 1975, they voted for the abolition of the institution of Chogyal and Sikkim becoming an integral part of India. Consequently, the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act (1975) was enacted to make Sikkim a full-fledged state of the Indian Union (the 22nd state), the same year in which this article was also introduced.
- Article 371G (53rd Amendment Act, 1986): Highlights the special provisions with regard to the state of Mizoram, and is pretty similar to Article 371-A, because this article also states that the Parliament will not interfere in the socio-religious practices of the Mizos and will never touch its customary laws and practices etc.
The Mizo National Front (MNF) was created on 22nd October 1961, which declared its goal to be the “sovereign independence of Greater Mizoram”. They employed armed insurrection techniques against the government, and the Congress government resorted to force in order to respond to such uprisings. The Mizo National Front was subsequently banned in 1967, only to make the struggle for statehood more fierce and violent. The Indian government converted Mizoram into a Union Territory on 21st January, 1972. Mizoram became a federal state of India on 20th February, 1987. The amendment enacted in the Parliament for inserting Article 371-G was just a year before this granting of separate statehood.
- Article 371H (55th Amendment Act, 1986): Grants special provisions to the state of Arunachal Pradesh. All actions on the part of the state are to be decided by the Governor of the state, after consulting with the state’s council of ministers.
Since long, Arunachal Pradesh has been claimed to be a part of the South Tibetan, or rather, “Chinese” territory, by the ruling Chinese Communist Party of the PRC. During the Sino-Indian border dispute, India did not concede to the Chinese claims of ownership or the invalidity of the Mcmahon line (Sir Henry McMahon, secretary in the Indian foreign department and representative of Great Britain at the conference held in 1912–13 in Simla/Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to settle frontier and other matters relating to Tibet.). Actually the part of the land that includes Arunachal Pradesh was provided to the British colonialists in the form of “land-lease” by the erstwhile Tibetan monarchical order or indigenous peoples of the Himalayas of north-eastern India (1912–13). The British Indian government had set up the Balipara frontier tract in the west, the Sadiya frontier tract in the east, and the Abor and Mishmi hills and the Tirap frontier tract in the south. Together those tracts became the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA). It gained the Union Territory status on 20 January 1972, and was renamed as Arunachal Pradesh, determined by the McMahon Line; it is about 550 miles (885 km) long and has been a lasting point of contention between India and China. It later on got the status of a full-fledged State on 20th February, 1987, just a year after this article was inserted into the Constitution.
(For detailed history of “ill-defined” geo-political boundaries [as a matter of fact, it is always “ill-defined”] cf. History of Arunachal Pradesh. VIEW HERE ⤡ ©Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Anti-national Nehru, at the time of the Indo-China war (1962), refused to come in peaceful terms with China on this border-issue and maintained his false ideal of territorial nationality. Bertrand Russell has dealt with this at greater length in his banned (banned by the Congress party for hiding their treachery with the Indian public) book Unarmed Victory (1963), which contains all his written letters to the governments of India and China. In this book, Russell unmasks the treacherous role of Nehru, who was the first to attack China in order to divert the people’s attention from the emergent food-movement (khādya āndolan) in various parts of our country.
Even an anti-communist Russell wrote in his book:
“During the height of the Cuban crisis, on 24 October, the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Chou En-lai, proposed a cease-fire to Mr Nehru along what he considered to be the lines of ‘actual control’ beginning 7 November 1959. In this proposal, he reiterated that he would be prepared to hold in abeyance the question of jurisdiction over any areas where there is a disagreement with the Government of India, and wished it to be clear that his proposal was not intended to determine de facto the designation of these areas. The Chinese have stated that they were always prepared to negotiate the areas in question without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of them. The reply of the Indian government has been that the Chinese have gradually established de facto control over certain areas which would be very difficult to alter once the principles of negotiation were accepted and that, therefore, India required entire Chinese withdrawal before she would consider discussion… The Chinese cease-fire and withdrawal strongly suggests that China is more anxious to put an end to the conflict than is India. (emphasis added)”
Remnants of the Communist Chinese Invasion (1962) at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh
Indo-Chinese Border, Bum La Pass
Arunachal Pradesh finds mention in the literature of Kalika Purana and the Mahabharata. This place harbours the Prabhu Mountains of the Puranas. It was here that maharsi Parasuram atoned for his sin, sage Vyasa practiced deep meditation, King Bismaka founded his kingdom and Lord Krishna got married to his Consort Rukmini. The archaeological remains at different regions of Arunachal Pradesh bear proof to its past Hindu cultural heritage. This makes it an integral part of our greatest and glorious land of Aryans.
(ANECDOTE OF A KNOWN SOLDIER SUBSCRIBING NATIONALISM)
- Article 371I – Goa (1949): The provision contained in this article could hardly be termed “special”, since it only specifies the maximum number of members in the legislative assembly of Goa (within the Konkan region). Yet, it must be kept in mind that Goa was once a Portuguese territory (Índia Portuguesa that continued for four and a half centuries since 1510, until its annexation to India in 1961.), so a separate, special mention of it in the constitution is crucial enough for maintaining the reigns of the hegemony of Nehruvian territorial nationalism. The tension of the Portuguese community in Goa at the moment of accession was captured by Shyam Benegal in his movie Trikal (1985) ⤡.
- Article 371J (98th Amendment Act, 2012): Provides special status to six “backward” districts of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, supplying the regions with an autonomous development board as well localized reservation in educational and governmental sectors. The linguistic regionalism characteristic to these areas might be a chief reason behind introducing this article into the constitution.
All the above processes reflect the utter arbitrariness of fuzzy geo-political boundaries that is involved in the process of formation of the nation-states (a Eurocentric derivative but altered by imagiNATION) and sub-states within a nation-state. Citing the sociologist Benedict Anderson, one could say that a nation is merely an “imagined” community created on the basis of certain “modules” like language, religion, race etc., with the aid of print capitalism (and now electronic capitalism!). Following Rabindranath Tagore (not Thakur) or Gandhi (both are undoubtedly anti-national, anti-Hindu traitors), one might call forth the idea of an indivisible unity of humankind or mānavagotra, progeny of Manu (or otherwise, “homo sapiens sapiens”, “earthians” or “species-beings”; we prefer this term “mānavagotra” rather than the Perso-Arabic term “Hindu”) and the processes of nature, without heeding the artificial, human-made boundaries of nation or nationality.
एवं यः सर्वभूतेषु पश्यत्यात्मानमात्मना ।
स सर्वसमतामेत्य ब्रह्माभ्येति परं पदम् ॥
— Manusmṛti 12.125
(He who thus recognizes in his individual Self, atman, the universal self [or the big “I”] that exists in all beings,
becomes equal-minded towards all, and enters the highest state, Brahman.)
As opposed to such negative, anti-national affirmations, we, the Hindus, would like to say that such conclusions cannot be encouraged, as long as the greater Hindu nation is our living breath, the very active principle motivating our Hindu souls on the basis of our genealogical fantasy: cultural inheritance! For us, all these reorganization, secession, separatism or regionalist tendencies are the necessary outcomes of the territorial nationalism as subscribed by anti-nationalist Nehru and Co, whatever was his initial standpoint with regard to the dangers of carrying out linguistic-surgeries. The articles discussed above are the results of giving regard to the different conglomerations of anti-national āndolanjivis, with an effort to respect plural voices within the democratic, socialistic, secularist framework. See what the so-called “Panditji” of the Congress Party wrote in his celebrated collection of letters: The Discovery of India:
“A Buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred percent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a Hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture.”
“In later ages, this [Indian] culture was greatly influenced by the impact of Islam, and yet it remained… distinctively Indian.” (Chapter 4, “What is Hinduism?”⤡)
[We collected the previous link from our very own “BJP E-Library⤡”, which contains a bunch of other writings of that quisling Nehru. We immediately request you, our acarya, to give an official order to remove these writings from the site’s database as soon as possible in order to stop the anti-Hindu, pro-Soviet propaganda of Nehru and Co.]
On the other hand, we are emphasizing on the Guruji Golwalkar’s views on expanded India: Afghanistan was our ancient Upaganasthan. Iran was originally Aryan, which is guided more by Aryanism than by Islam. The sacred book, Zend-Avesta of the Zoroastrianism in ancient Persia, is mostly Rig Veda. Burma (Myanmar) must be recognized as our ancient Brahmadesha. Altogether the splendid picture we form is of a motherland with the Himalayas dipping its arms in the two seas, at Indo-Aryan in the East and Indo-Iran in the West along with Sringapur (Singapore) in the East, with Lanka (Ceylon) as a “lotus petal offered at her sacred feet”. (Summarized from Bunch of Thoughts⤡). After pronouncing this, Guruji cited the mantra, where waters of all the rivers are amalgamated:
गङ्गे च यमुने चैव गोदावरि सरस्वति ।
नर्मदे सिन्धु कावेरि जलेऽस्मिन् संनिधिं कुरु ॥
Guruji said, “Even to this day a Hindu while taking his daily bath invokes the sacred rivers right from Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada and Sindhu to Cauvery.” It entails integrity of our beloved Bhāratmātā.
Guruji also quoted Kālidāsa’s Kumārasambhava to show the strength of cultural nationalism without any political vested interests for territorial nationalism:
अस्त्युत्तरस्यां दिशि देवतात्मा हिमालयो नाम नगाधिराजः।
पूर्वापरौ तोयनिधी विगाह्य स्थितः पृथिव्या इव मानदण्डः॥ १-१
(At the North is the divine, sovereign of snowy mountains renowned as (range of) Himalayas (heartland of gods), the King of mountains, stretching its arms to the ocean on the east and west and standing as the measuring rod/stick or axis of the earth.)
Yes, this is our Hindu nation state:
माता च पार्वती देवी पिता देवो महेश्वरः ।
बान्धवाः शिवभक्ताश्च स्वदेशो भुवनत्रयम् ॥१२॥
(My Mother is Devi Parvati, and my Father is Deva Maheswara, my friends are the devotees of siva, and my own country is all the Three Worlds)
We, through व्याहृति, are trying to entering into these Three Worlds: भूर्भुवः स्वः ……॥