HINDUTVA PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By Dr SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
I am not an advocate of the concept of “Hindu economics” because economic laws are universal, and humans respond to incentives and coercion more or less the same way everywhere and in every culture. But I do advocate here that there is a need for a Hindu School of Economics for developing an alternative and holistic theory of economic development based not only on material output and economic services, but also on ancient Hindu spiritual values. These values are codified as Sanatana Dharma [i.e., eternally valid enlightened norms] whereby dharma informs the acquisition of artha(wealth), the scope and limits of enjoyment of kama(sensual and other pleasures) and the ultimate pursuit of moksha(spiritual salvation).
These two goals of kama and moksha are dependent on attaining a critical level of artha, much as Swami Vivekananda had said in the late nineteenth century that we cannot preach spirituality to someone with an empty stomach.
The ‘Swadeshi’[indigenous] or Hindutva [the quality of being Hindu or Hinduness] theory of development postulates that the basis for pursuit of true or inner happiness is the spiritual advancement of one’s self with economic well-being treated as a means to that end. This contrasts with the single-minded pursuit of material and physical pleasure as an end in itself in capitalistic or socialistic theories of development in which the uni-dimensional approach of materialism has led to the present greed-- dominated globalization.
The word Hindutva was first explicitly used by Veer Savarkar to define nationalism. The word itself is of mid-nineteenth century coinage meaning “Hinduness”. The Hindutva inspiration was the foundation for the first major nationalist struggle – the Swadeshi[Self-Reliance} Movement, in which Sri Aurobindo was a prime mover, and which movement followed the Partition of Bengal in 1905 but preceded Savarkar’s writings. But taken together, today Hindutva is a multi-facet concept of identity, social constitutional order, modernity, civilization history, economic philosophy and governance.
Sanatana Dharma is eternal because it is based not upon the teachings of a single preceptor or a chosen prophet but on the collective and accumulated wisdom and inspiration of great seers and sages from the dawn of civilization. Hindu theology and scriptures therefore is accumulated revealed knowledge and not revelations of any prophet that was taken down by scribes or followers.
Thus, Sanatana Dharma is an enlightened code of living which if we follow will keep us happy, stress free, and enable us to make progress in life without bitterness. The present life of materialism without regard to harmony with spiritual values is disastrous and cause of unhappiness.
Hindutva is a concept that reflects the broad spiritual ethos of India’s many great rishis, yogis and sanyasis, and their diverse teachings and spiritual vision. In this paper, we have essentially followed Sri Aurobindo’s formulation, which though having the same basis as Savarkar’s, is more broad-based.
My search for a more holistic theory of economic development rooted in Hindutva is about three decades old. In 1970, I had presented a “Swadeshi Plan”[2] at a gathering of economists assembled at the Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi. It was an instant national media event because of the yearning for an alternative theory relevant to India, but it attracted a huge flak from the Left-wing academics who dominated the universities those days.
So much so, that the then Left leaning Prime Minister, Mrs.Indira Gandhi, who also held the Finance Portfolio that time, on March 4, 1970 took the floor of the Lok Sabha [India’s Parliament] during the 1970-71 Budget debate, to denounce my Swadeshi Plan, and me by name, as ‘dangerous” because “much like a Santa Claus” I had promised presents to all.
She was particularly irked by my thesis that India could grow at 10% per year instead of 3.5% per year, achieve self-reliance, and produce nuclear weapons for its defence, only if India gave up Soviet model’s socialism, and followed competitive market economic system which is harmonized with values drawn from Sanatana Dharma, much as Mahatma Gandhi had preached prior to achieving Independence, by raising the slogan of Ram Rajya.
Those days in the 1970s, few dared to question Soviet socialism much less could advocate Hindutva. The entire Left wing captive intellectuals therefore had pounced on me and ostracized me from academia because I had debunked the Soviet economic model by describing it as a prescription for disaster for India. If as I argue here that a single minded material pursuit and maximization cannot produce happiness, then it is also true that a system that is not based on incentives but is on coercion as the Soviet model was, cannot work. This latter fact is now established by the history of the 1980s and 90s with the unraveling of the Soviet empire.
There is now a growing interest in the West especially the US on Hindu concepts. Although long years ago Ralph Waldo Emerson had spoken glowingly about the Bhagvata Gita, in recent years there have been published a spate of articles and books on the need to incorporate Hindu concepts in economic analysis. Bruce Rich(2010) book on Globalisation [1] is one such worthy of notice. Richard Goldberg’s American Veda (2011) [4] is another.
Lisa Miller’s “We Are All Hindus Now” Newsweek [August 24-31, 2009] has popularized Hindu concepts on life are rational and secular enough for Americans to accept. Thus, Hinduism’s scientific foundation and spirit of inquiry is beginning to find favour abroad. Lisa Miller, an editor of the Newsweek holds that modern American is “conceptually, at least, are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, ourselves, each other and eternity”. That is, she is saying that Hindutva is permeating USA by osmosis:
“America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American his¬tory). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.”
“The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conser¬vative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”
“Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that “many religions can lead to eternal life”—in¬cluding 37 percent of white evangeli¬cals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves “spiritual, not religious,” according to a 2009 NEWS-WEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for “the divine-deli-cafeteria religion” as “very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same,” he says. “It isn’t about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too.”
“Then there's the question of what hap¬pens when you die. Christians tradition¬ally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they make up the “self,” and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit—where iden¬tity resides—escapes. In reincarna¬tion, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in differ¬ent bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, accord¬ing to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them—like Hindus—after death. More than a third of Americans now choose crema¬tion, according to the Cremation As¬sociation of North America, up from 6 percent in l975. Let us all say ‘Om’”.
The statement of Oscar winning Hollywood actress Julia Roberts made upon converting with her family to Hindu religion is revealing of the spreading popularity of Hindu concepts in the US. She said that despite becoming wealthy she could get mental peace and solace after imbibing Hindu concepts. The wide acceptability of yoga in US today is also a manifestation of that fact of the growing acceptability of Hindutva.
The main objective of the Sanatana Dharma thus is to unfold the tremendous multi-dimensional potentialities of human intelligence, step by step, from the outer physical body level to subtle inner mental to intellectual and ultimately to the highest spiritual level, leading to Enlightenment and Self Realization. The human being is constituted by soul, mind and body, parallel in functions to a company incorporated constituted by a proprietor, manager and workers. In the West the innovative mind is based on the development of cognitive intelligence only.
India today leads the world in the supply pool of youth, i.e., persons in the age group of 15 to 35 years, and this lead will last for another forty years. This generation is most fertile milieu for promoting knowledge, innovation, and research. It is the prime work force that saves for the future, the corpus for pension funding of the old. We should therefore not squander this “natural vital resource”.
Thus, India has now become, by unintended consequences, gifted with a young population. If we educate this youth to develop cognitive intelligence [CQ] to become original thinkers, imbibe emotional intelligence [EQ] to have team spirit and rational risk-taking attitude, inculcate moral intelligence [MQ] to blend personal ambition with national goals, cultivate social intelligence [SOI] to defend civic rights of the weak, gender equality, and the courage to fight injustice and nurture spiritual intelligence [SI] to innovate the transformative power of vision and intention to access the vast energy the pervades the cosmos to innovate and out of box research, then we can develop a superior species of human being, an Indian youth who can be relied on to contribute to make India a global power within two decades. Computers my have high CQ because they are programmed to understand the rules, and follow them without making mistakes. Many mammals have high EQ. Only humans know to ask why, and can work with re-shaping boundaries instead of just within boundaries. Human can innovate, not animals.
The nation must therefore structure a national policy for the youth of India so that in every young Indian the five dimensional concept of intelligence, viz., cognitive emotional, moral, social and spiritual manifests in his character. Only then, our demographic dividend will not be wasted. These five dimensions of intelligence constitute the ability of a person to live a productive life and for national good. Hence, a policy for India's youth has to be structured within the implied parameters of these five dimensions.
True happiness is possible, according to Sanatana Dharma, only if material progress that is attained is moderated and harmonized by spiritual values. This is the Hindutva [Hinduness] principle of economic development and it is this core concept that is becoming widely acceptable faced with the consequences of greed and envy that is fueling the current globalization. Thus, the choice of objectives, priorities, strategy and financial architecture, the four pillars of the nation’s policy-making for economic development, have to be defined in accordance with the Hindu concepts. This Hinduisation leads to Hindutva or Hinduness. What that means we shall now discuss
Hinduness springs from Sanatana Dharma in Sri Aurobindo’s broader formulation as also in Savarkar’s narrower formulations. In the analysis in this paper, Hindutva conforms to Vedanta as propounded by Swami Vivekananda, and interpreted by Gandhi, Golwalkar and Upadhyaya.
THE CONCEPT OF HINDUTVA: CAN IT BE FUNDAMENTALIST?
This unique feature of focusing on the message and its truth rather than the authority of the messenger brings Sanatana Dharma proximate to a science, and spiritual its logic akin to the scientific inquiry. In science also, a principle or a theory must stand or fall on its own merit and not on the authority of anyone. If Newton and Einstein are considered great scientists, it is because of the validity of their scientific theories.
In that sense, science is also apaurusheya. Gravitation and Relativity are eternal laws of nature and existed long before Newton and Einstein. These are cosmic laws that happened to be discovered by scientific sages Newton and Einstein. Their greatness lies in the fact that they discovered and revealed great scientific truths. But no one invokes Newton or Einstein as authority to ‘prove’ the truth of laws of nature. They stand on their own merit.
This is the greatest difference between Sanatana Dharma and the two religions of Christianity and Islam. These two major religions simply do not tolerate pluralism. In a document titled “Declaration of Lord Jesus”, the Vatican proclaims non-Christians to be in a “gravely deficient situation” and that even non-Catholic churches have “defects” because they do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope.
This of course means that the Vatican refuses to acknowledge the spiritual right of the Hindus to their beliefs and practices! Christianity consigns non-Christians to hell, and the only way they can save themselves is by becoming Christians, preferably Catholics, by submitting to the Pope.
A Hindu thus even if he lives a life of virtue, is still consigned to hell by Christianity because he refuses to acknowledge Jesus as the only savior and the Pope as his representative on earth. The same is true of Islam; one must submit to Prophet Muhammad as the last, in effect the only prophet, in order to be saved. Belief in God means nothing without belief in Christ as the savior or Muhammad as the Last Prophet. Even one who believes in God but does not accept Jesus or Muhammad as intermediary is considered a non-believer and therefore a sinner or a Kafir. This is what makes both Christianity and Islam exclusive, what makes Hinduism pluralistic and tolerant, and therefore Hindutva inclusive.
Hinduism recognizes no intermediary as the exclusive messenger of God. In fact the Rigveda itself says: ‘ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti,’ meaning “cosmic truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways.” The contrast between exclusivism and pluralism becomes clear when we compare what Krishna and Jesus Christ said:
Krishna in the Bhagavadgita says: “All creatures great and small – I am equal to all. I hate none nor have I any favorites……He that worships other gods with devotion, worships me.”
“He that is not with me is against me,” says Jesus. So a devotee cannot directly know God, but can only pray to God go through the intermediary—who jealously guards his exclusive access to God. Those who try otherwise, even if a priest, is ex-communicated as was done in the case of Rev.Don Mario Muzzoleni, as he himself records in his recent book.
Hinduism is the exact opposite of this. Anyone can know God and no jealous intermediary can block his way. And the Hindu tradition has methods like yoga and meditation through a guru to facilitate one to reach God. Further, this spiritual freedom extends even to atheism. One can be an atheist (nastik) and still claim to be a Hindu. In addition, there is nothing to stop a Hindu from revering Jesus as the Son of God or Muhammad as a Prophet. In contrast, a Christian or a Muslim revering Rama or Krishna would be condemned to death as a Kafir or burnt on the stakes as Joan of Arc was, as a pagan possessed by the devil, or the enemy.
The objective of human life is not merely the pursuit of happiness and pleasure but more to experience a deep sense of fulfillment. All else e.g., position, purse, power, prestige, prize, profession etc., are at best, simply the means to that goal by which fulfillment be achieved and only by acquiring and cultivating the ingredients of Dharma. Fulfillment is essential because the human, unlike the animal, can reason logically deductively and inductively to analyse, theorise, and predict. When the human gets it wrong then he unable comprehend why. For this a moral compass becomes necessary.
Hinduism and its scriptures on yoga have a moral code. Twenty ethical guidelines called yamas and niyamas, "restraints and observances." These "dos" and "don'ts" are found in the ancient Vedas, in other holy texts expounding the path of yoga. This moral code informs the theory of economic development.
The yamas and niyamas are a common-sense code recorded in the section of the Vedas, called Upanishads, namely the Shandilya and the Varuha. They are also found in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika by Gorakhnatha, the Tirumantiram of Tirumular and in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. The yamas and niyamas have been preserved through the centuries as the foundation, the first and second stage, of the eight staged practice of yoga.
Sage Patanjali said "these yamas are not limited by class, country, time (past, present or future) or situation. Hence they are called the universal great vows." The science of yama and niyama are the means to control the vitarkas, the cruel thoughts, which when acted upon result in injury to others, untruthfulness, hoarding, discontent, indolence or selfishness. For each vitarka possessed, you can create its opposite through yama and niyama, and make your life successful. Hindu value system is a balance between hard skills (such as learning arts & science) and soft skills (such as morals).
So the message it clear. India and Sanatana Dharma exist for each other. Sanatana Dharma is defines nationalism and nationalism is Sanatana Dharma. Hindutva is the practical and political manifestation of Sanatana Dharma. It exists to defend Sanatana Dharma, while threatening no one. This was the Hindustan that Sri Aurobindo and many other sages had dreamt about. It should also be our dream and goal today.
Vedic civilization endured for many centuries while providing prosperity and justice to all. This happened because it was based on a balance between power and dharma achieved through a collaboration between the rulers and the sages (or kings and rishis) of the land. The two of course can be separated but this understanding of the Rishi and King alliance in the Rigveda can serve as a guide and inspiration to the future for India and the polity.
I want to emphasize that we use the terms ‘Brahmana’ and ‘Kshatriya’ to mean those who perform those functions, and not castes based on birth, as is held today. Krishna in the Bhagavadgita says: ‘caturvarnyam maya srishtam guna-karma vibhagashah’. This means: “The four classification (varna) are made by me based on character (guna) and duties (karma).” In due course, this became perverted as caste based on birth – which we hold as a serious corruption of dharma. To give an example by Krishna’s Gita, Dr.Ambedkar was a Brahmin because of his intellectual leadership regardless of his birth. But yet we call him of Scheduled Caste.
The Hindu idea of the dharmic king is also very different from a theocracy, or a rule by the church. The purohit never represented a church, institution or dogma. He functioned as an advisor, not as a censor or ‘thought police’. One of the functions of the purohit was to make sure that the king was fit, not only politically but also spiritually. King Bharata disinherited his own sons as unfit to rule. Sagara disinherited his own son Asamanjas and made his grandson Anshuman his heir, who went on to become a great ruler. The Vedic idea of a dharmic king had a democratic side to it. The purohit – as puro hita – represented the people’s interest. The rishis, therefore, gave the kings their privileges and enjoyments, but balanced these with duties and respect for the swages and the Dharma.
There are only skeletal remains of our glorious civilization that was once the most scientifically most advanced, and educated and wealthy. The present generation of Hindus therefore has to reconstruct this civilization and rebuild the cultural edifice from these skeletal remains. This is what we call as national renaissance.
Therefore, structurally, there is no scope for a Hindu to be a fundamentalist. For, fundamentalism by definition, requires an unquestioning commitment to a book or scripture in its pristine original version. For Hindus, there is no one scripture to revert to for theological purity since there are many scriptures which raise a plethora of beliefs that sustain faith, debates, and profound speculations on basic questions [e.g., Upanishads], such as on advaita, dvaita, astika and nastika. Questioning, debating and synthesizing are an integral part of Hindu theology viz., shashtrathas. Nor does Hinduism have just one prophet to revere, or prohibits holding any other view of religious experience. But most of all, Hindus are committed to the search for truth [including knowing what is truth], for which incessant debate is permitted. Fundamentalists on the other hand unquestioningly are committed to ‘the Book’. This again is why Hindutva can never become fundamentalist, which Muslims and Christians can.
.jpg)
CASUALITIES OF HINDUTVA BASED THEORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
As Bruce Rich [1] aptly summarized it [on page 6] quoting Kautilya, otherwise known as Chanakya, that subject to dharma, priority be given to artha, i.e., the society’s and individual’s material wealth and well-being, with the subsequent aim of experiencing kama but ultimately striving to attain moksha.
n the late Seventies, I came under the influence of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism, and by Dattopant Thengadi’s commentaries on it, and therefore enlarged the concept of Swadeshi, to explicitly include the necessacity of formally harmonizing the goal of economic development with India’s ancient Hindu spiritual values.
In 1977, at the invitation Dr.Mahesh Mehta, I presented a paper in New York titled “Economic Perspectives in Integral Humanism”. This was later published in a volume [edited by Mahesh Mehta] titled: Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism (Edison, NJ, 1978).
By then I had also been influenced by the writings of the venerated sage, accomplished scholar, and Freedom Fighter, Sri Aurobindo who had long foreseen the debilitating effects of an one-dimensional materialist outlook on human society, and long before the consumerism of globalization that we see today.
In his 1918 publication titled The Renaissance of India, he advocated the harmonization of material pursuits with spiritual and moral values to create an integral person. The economic policy thus designed, he said, must be consistent with the spiritual values embedded in Sanatana Dharma.
It is this seminal idea that Deendayal Upadhyaya, a profound political thinker and activist, developed into his thesis of Integral Humanism [3]. To quote Deendayalji himself [3]: "Both the systems, capitalist and communist, have failed to take account of the Integral Man, his true and complete personality, and his aspirations. One[system] considers him as mere selfish being, lingering after money, having only one law, the law of fierce competition, in essence the law of the jungle; whereas the other has viewed him as a feeble lifeless cog in the whole scheme of things regulated by rigid rules, and incapable of any good unless directed. The centralization of power, economic and political, is implied in both. Both therefore result in dehumanization of man"[p.76]. He thus advocated that "swadeshi [self-reliance] and vikendrikaran [decentralization] as the two pillars of the economic policy suitable for our times.
Upadhyaya also dismissed democratic or the neo 'Gandhian' version of Socialism as failing to establish the importance of the human being [op.cit., p.74-75]. He said: "The needs and preferences of individuals have as much importance in the socialist system as in a prison manual"
This is in keeping with the thesis of Sri Aurobindo that class struggle as a concept embedded in all varieties of socialism, is anti-human, and instead, class harmony and conflict resolution are the basic instincts of the human. The Communist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat was nothing but "the dictatorship of the dictator of a dictatorial party". The task of making these ideas as mainstream in the English-speaking elite and economists was looking near impossible.
I was however proved right and vindicated later in 1991, when the Soviet Union had unraveled in a spectacle of ‘Balkanisation’ of 16 separate countries. Most of the prominent Left academics also mercifully left India and migrated to the US. The search for Hindutva Principles then began with gusto because of an ongoing Ram temple national agitation. As Commerce Minister then, I presented the first blue prints for economic reform that was subsequently adopted and implemented without much opposition by the successor Narasimha Rao government [in which also I held a Cabinet rank post].
Today I can with some satisfaction assert that by propounding the concept of an integral outlook—namely that economic behaviour must blend with spiritual values to produce a happy and contented society the Hindutva theory of economic development represents for the nation a new and alternative direction in economics discourse.
We in India have yet to incorporate this direction in our official economic policy, but time will soon be at hand for us to do so when the people's mandate is given for a new system of governance.
Mahatma Gandhi had said that in this world there is enough for everybody’s need but not for everybody’s greed. Agreeing with this dictum, we need to define what is the need and how greed can be curbed. This would cause three major casualties in the current neoclassical economic theory.
First, the objective of maximum profit in production theory and maximum utility in consumer behavior theory will have to be replaced. On Hindutva principles, one good replacement would be minimum cost of production subject to a lower bound for production, and minimum expenditure subject to a lower bound for the level of utility that must be attained.
Second, that while individual choices are transitive, collective majority determined choice is not necessarily transitive. Hence collective choice would require conflict resolution and game theory to ensure transitivity. This is the Hindutva principle of harmonization.
Third, that innovation would not be cognitive intelligence driven but by a collective determination of six intelligences—cognitive, emotional, social, moral, spiritual and environmental. .
Economic policy is usually structured in a four dimensional framework, and may be thus defined by (i) Objectives (2) Priorities (3) Strategy (4) The Financial and Institutional Architecture.
Let us take the first dimension, of objectives of economic policy of four main ideologies of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Integral Humanism. Theoretically, communism takes maximum production for the state as the goal, while capitalism considers that the jungle concept of laissez faire based on survival of the fittest will be guided by an Invisible Hand to achieve maximum profit for producers and maximum consumption of material goods for the worker. Socialism aims at maximum welfare measured by state guarantees against risks of disease, death and unemployment to the individual citizen. That is the concept of welfare under socialism.
However all these goals are purely materialistic and derails the innate human development by encouraging the rat-race. Hindutva theory of economic development requires the human being’s development being viewed integrally and holistically (hence Upadhyaya’s term ‘Integral Humanism’). That means the blending of materialistic goals with spiritual imperatives as the primary goal of economic policy.
M.S. Golwalkar, the organizational genius behind the RSS-- a fervent Hindutva cadre-based but volunteer organisation of more than 1 million-- in his Bunch of Thoughts (page 5), states: “All attempts and experiments made so far were based on ‘isms’ stemming from materialism. However, we Hindus have a solution to offer”. He propounded that “the problem boils down to one of achieving a synthesis of national aspirations and world welfare”. Golwalker advocates that in this synthesis, “swalambana (or self-reliance) forms the backbone of a free and prosperous nation…” (p.313), and that at the very minimum, “atma poorti” (or self-sufficiency) in food production is a must for our national defence…”(p.316).
The difference between swalambana and atma poorti is this: the former requires that we must depend on our own resources, i.e., if there is a shortage of some commodity, we should earn enough foreign exchange by exports to buy it from abroad. That is, we should depend on our own resources. The latter concept of atma poorti requires that we produce in sufficient quantities in our own country so that we do not suffer in any shortage in any required commodity. That is, we should depend only on our own indigenous production.
Today obviously that is not the situation in India. We find that the nation has moved from food self-sufficiency (atma poorti) in the mid-seventies to dependence on imports from abroad. Farmers are committing suicides, and land, due to the blind use of chemicals and foreign seeds, are becoming of low productivity or going barren.
Golwalker’s warning thus was timely. India must re-orient the objective of our economic policy to re-gain self-sufficiency in food production, and must do it as much as is possible, by environment- friendly means such as organic farming, wind energy, and cooperative endeavour.
Upadhyaya, drawing on the seminal ideas of Golwalkar, thus brought out how the objective of economic policy is different from the objective in foreign ideologies of Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. He propounded therefore the concept of ‘Integral Man’ as assimilating and harmonizing the chaturvidha purushartha [four energies] which he elaborated as a concept in his Integral Humanism.
He added the concept of Chiti, the soul of the nation, which each nation must discover to decide the correct formulation of economic policy. The concept of Chiti of a nation is an original contribution of Upadhyaya, but a more articulate version is the concept of identity elaborated by the late Harvard Professor, Samuel Huntington in his book Who Are We ? .
Thus the economic perspectives in Integral Humanism, which is the Hindutva theory of economic development, are funda¬mentally different from those contained in Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. To quote Upadhyaya himself: "Both these systems, capitalist as well as communist, have failed to take account of the Integral Man, his true and complete personality and his aspirations. One considers him as mere selfish being lingering after money, having only one law, the law of fierce competition, in essence the law of the jungle; whereas the other has viewed him as a feeble lifeless cog in the whole scheme of things, regulated by rigid rules, and incapable of any good unless directed. The centralization of power, economic and political, is implied in both. Both, therefore, result in dehumanization of man." [ op.cit., p.76] Arguing that the so-called democratic socialism is no better, he stated [p.74-75]: "Socialism arose as a reaction to capitalism. But even socialism failed to establish the importance of the human being. The needs and preferences of individuals have as much importance in the socialist system as in a prison manual."Therefore Upadhyaya stated for his Integral Humanism that: [Ibid., p.76-77]: "Man, the highest creation of God, is losing his own identity. We must re-establish him in his rightful position, bring him the realization of his greatness, re-awaken his abilities and encourage him to exert for attaining divine heights of his latent personality. This is possible only through a decentralized economy." He went on to indicate: "Swadeshi and Decentralization are the two words which can briefly summarize the economic policy suitable for the present circumstances." [p.78]
Upadhyaya’s stress on the need to think in integrated terms is now fashionably called "systems analysis or holistic view” in the West. He also emphasized the need to liberate man by recognizing "complementarities" in life, which in a narrower economic context is ‘external economies’ or social cost-benefit analysis. That is, the human is not on his own, or alone. His plea for rejection of class struggle and the need to think in terms of conflict resolution and "class harmony" is now much in vogue today in the West - which is getting increasingly disillusioned with capitalism.
If we are not to suffer the societal unhappiness and tensions of the West, then we have to break away from the path that we have chosen presently, viz., the Nehruvian materialistic socialistic path that has yet to be completely abandoned since economic reforms initiated since 1991 has been largely aborted since 2004. Partially is not enough for national good.
The alternative to materialistic capitalism is obviously not communism with Chinese characteristics as the remnants of Left in India camouflaged as liberals still argue, because even in China, there is a problem of "alienation" and "exploitation" as revealed recently from reports that have been received.
Deendayal Upadhyaya was also aware as early as in 1965, of the Communist degeneration. Logically for him, any system in which man does not receive primacy is bound to ultimately degenerate. Interest¬ingly Deendayalji quotes M.Djilas the author of The New Class to prove that in Communist countries, "a new class of bureau¬cratic exploiter has come into existence." Thus, by presenting his Integral Humanism, which I have expanded here as the Hindutva theory of economic development, Upadhyaya had placed before the world a new original alternative ideological framework. To appreciate the fundamentally different structure of economic policy imbedded in the Hindutva theory, I have annexed in tabular form for ready reference, the various alternative competing ideologies in terms of its structural parameters of objectives, priorities, development strategy, resource mobilization, and institutional framework.
From the table we may note that the economic perspective of this theory is fundamentally different from the other ideologies. Capitalism and communism have similarities in matters of objectives and institutional framework. If cost of production is stabilized, then maximum profit and maximum production are identical.
Again, class struggle and annihilation and survival of fittest, are different only to the extent that communism envisages the survival of the "fittest" class, whereas capitalism expects the "fittest" individual to engage in fierce competition and annihilate the other rivals. Similarly, socialism has only a difference of degree with communism — on the extent of coercion and control, and not fundamentally. That is why communism is often referred to as "scientific" socialism, although there is nothing scientific about it.
Since one socialism differs from another socialism only in degrees, therefore there are unlimited varieties of socialism varying from those of Hitler's Nazism, Uganda's Idi Amin's, Indira Gandhi's, to democratic socialism of Sweden. This has only caused confusion — and gives ample scope to hypocrisy. Thus we can see some people in India arguing on one hand for nationalization and austerity, and at the same time encouraging foreign collaboration while living in mansions. Such inconsistencies can be recon¬ciled in some variety of socialism, interpreted at will. From this table it is also apparent that except in Integral Humanism, humanity as a whole is subservient to these systems either explicitly or implicitly. Under communism, man explicitly subserves the system. Coercion, termed as dictatorship of the proletariat, is legitimized "in the interest of the State." Even in the choice of a career, location of work, and personal advancement are explicitly or implicitly directed by the State. The person in such countries has no room for choice or even any option to opt out of such a system because his freedom to travel out of the country is also completely curbed. In capitalism, an individual may have technical freedom for his "pursuit of happiness", but the system fails to accomodate the varying capabilities and endowments of man. Since the law of the jungle, which is at the core of the survival of the fittest as the norm of capitalism, therefore some achieve great progress and advancement while others get trampled and disabled in what is called the "rat race". Since maximum profit is possible only in a newer and latest technology, man has to socially and personally adjust to the terrifying demands of technology, rather than technology adjusting to the integral needs of man. So we witness today in an advanced capitalist country such as USA, broken homes, high divorce rates and ruined family life which have become common because technology has run riot there in making these cruel demands. So man has to adjust to it, drop out or perish. Such a development becomes inevitable in a system in which the "shortage of manpower (is) the guiding factor in the design of machines." The recent craze in the West for our "Sadhus" and Hindu religion arises largely due to this search for individuality, to escape the mental tensions which this kind of technology demands from the people, and because their own religious pre¬achers are ill-equipped to cope with it. Thus we find highly accomplished and wealthy persons in the West increasingly turning to Hindutva such as yoga, meditation, Ayurveda and even as we recently saw in the case of Hollywood actress and her family convert to Hindu religion. As to why this fascination has developed is discussed in the new book by Phillip Goldberg [4]. Thus in capitalism, in the extreme under laissez faire, although man has fundamental freedoms, but because the development strategy is to give primacy to technology, therefore implicitly man becomes subservient to the system. In such societies individuality is thus expressed in other outlets as crime, free sex, drunkenness, and rebel dropout movements. Just as survival of the fittest is dehumanizing, so is class struggle which is the foundation of Marxism. Under communism, classes are sought to be eliminated by the intensification of class struggle. Obviously such intensification will lead to hate and tension, consequently dehumanization. We saw the extent of such dehumanization in communist countries, In the USSR, for example, most prominent intellec¬tuals such as Alexander Solzenitsyn, Andrie Sakharov had suffered severe punishment from the state because they had questioned this dehumanizating process.
Once a decision is taken on the path of development, Upadhayaya would advocate incentives, and realistic taxation to encourage saving, and to discourage conspicuous consumption as the only practical way to mobilize resources. This is contained in postu¬late 7. Most ideologies are weak when it comes to specifying resource mobilization, perhaps, because spelling it out means annoying one section or another. Therefore, the topic is either handled in a general way or indirectly.
In Hindutva, a person must be encouraged to save, live simply and acquire wealth, but then it must be made socially prestigious to give away his wealth or manage it as a "trustee" for society. In western societies, the size of a person's wealth is the most important determinant of his social, cultural and national prestige. So he is encouraged to part with a portion of his wealth by urging him to spend more and on himself! This results in a fierce competition on who can spend more on himself "keeping up with the Joneses" leading to great waste. In this behaviourial factor alone, Hindutva is distinctly different from the culture of the West.
Thus in Integral Humanism’s scheme of things, which is based on Hindutva, social and cultural influences are integrated into a man's psyche, so that parting with his wealth for society becomes his own desire. In such a framework, there is no weakening of a person's resolve to have his income or pursue its immediate enlargement. Philanthropy is an essentially pillar of democracy, and hence as Mahatma Gandhi had said, the rich must treats themselves as trustees of the nation’s wealth.
As a trustee, every individual also cares for the physical environment and pollution. He also treats animals humanely and where such animals are multiple assets to human civilization, such an integrally human person will even regard the animal as divine to ensure it is nurtured and respected. The cow is one such animal.
Traditional Hindu belief, for example, in the efficacy of the milk and products of the Indian breeds of cows and its sacred status has been divided by our Westernized elite that had led to the neglect of cow because it is held that milk from all breeds of cows and buffaloes is equally good; and to improve the present low milk yield of the Indian breeds of cows, cross breeding with European high yielding cows was recommended.
But recent researches suggest that that only the milk of Bos Indicus i.e. Indian breed of cows has the desired health promoting properties due to presence of Beta Casein A2 protein. European breeds of Cows are classified as Bos Taurus. Their milk contains the protein Beta Casein Al, which produces beta-casomorphin7, which makes this milk diabetogenic relative to A2 milk. Medical researches have also linked Al milk with statistically higher incidence of Cardiac situations. In Australia, New Zealand, Korea Certified, A2 milk is already commanding the premium price of four times the price of non-certified A1A1-A1A2 milk.
Concomitantly cross breeding between the two breeds of the cow is being discontinued in these countries. Strategies are already being worked out to convert all the cows with the farmers to revert to Bos Indicus breeds for beta casein A2 protein in their milk.
Hence, a new fervour is developing to create a cow-renaissance in the nation. As Bahadur Shah and Maharaja Ranjit Singh did, India should amend the Indian Penal Code to make cow slaughter as a capital offence as well as a ground for arrest under the National Security Act, to give meaning and urgency to the total ban on cow slaughter.
India has 150 million cows today, giving an average of less than 200 litres of milk per year. If they could be fed and looked after, then these divine animals can give an average of 11,000 litres of milk as the Israeli cows do. That could provide milk for the whole world.
The cow was elevated to the status of divinity in the Rg.Veda iself. In Book VI the Hymn XXVIII attributed to Rishi Bhardwaja, extols the virtue of the cow. In Atharva Veda (Book X, Hymn 10), the cow is formally designated as Vishnu, and "all that the Sun surveys." This divinely quality of the cow has been affirmed by Kautilya in his Arthsastra (Chapter XXIX).
The Indian society has addressed the cow with the appellation of 'mother'. "Tilam na dhaanyam, pashuvah na Gaavah" (Sesame is not a cereal, cow is not an animal). The Churning of the Sea episode brings to light the story of the creation of the cow! Five divine Kamadhenus (wish cows), viz, Nanda, Subhadra, Surabhi, Sushila, Bahula emerged in the churning.
In 2003, the National Commission on Cattle presided over by Justice G.M. Lodha, submitted its recommendations to the NDA Government. The Report (in 4 volumes) called for stringent laws to protect the cow and its progeny in the interest of India's rural economy. This is a Constitutional requirement under Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 48 of the Constitution says: "The State shall lendeavour or organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milchand draught cattle". In 1958, a 5-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court {(1959) SCR 629} upheld Article 48 and the consequent total ban on cow slaughter as a reasonable restriction on Fundamental Rights.
When India fought the First War of Independence in 1857, and Bahadur Shah 'Zafar' was installed as Emperor by the Hindus in Delhi for a brief period, his Hindu Prime Minister, on the Emperor's Proclamation made the killing of cow a capital offence. Earlier in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom, the only crime that had capital punishment was cow slaughter. For a Hindu, the very appearance of a cow evokes a sense of piety. It is serene by temperament and herbivorous by diet. Apart from milk, cow dung known for its anti-septic value, is still used as fuel in its dried caked form in most Indian villages. It is also used in compost manure and in the production of electricity through eco-friendly gobar-gas. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi had declared: "Cow protection is more important than even Swaraj".
Even today, 75 per cent of Indians in villages derive the great benefits from cows and bullocks. Despite the compulsions of modernism, tractors are not suitable for the small Indian land holdings. In US, the land available to each person is around 14 acre; in India is around 0.70 acre. A tractor consumes diesel, creates pollution, does not live on grass nor produces dung for manure. Thus Albert Einstein, in a letter to Sir CV Raman, wrote "Tell the people of India that if they want to survive and show the world path to survive, then they should forget about tractor and preserve their ancient tradition {bullock} ploughing".
III. POSTULATES OF HINDUTVA THEORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I need not dwell any further on the demerits of other ideologies, but consider in, concrete positive terms, what economic perspectives Hindutva offers. I would organize thesefirst in terms of basic economic postulates using modern theoretical terminology and jargon:
Postulate: 1 The economy is a sub - system of the society and not the sole guiding factor of social growth. Hence no economic theorems can be formulated without first recognising that life is an integral system, and therefore whatever economic laws are deduced or codified, they must add or at least not reduce the integral growth of man. The centrality of Man's divine spark and his evolution is on the four Chaturvidha Purusharthas of dharma, artha, kama, moksha.
Postulate: 2 There is plurality, and diversity in life. Man is subject to several internal contradictions. The solution is to be based on the harmonization of this plurality, diversity, and internal contradictions. Thus laws governing this harmony will have to be discovered and codified, which we shall call Dharma. An economy based on Dharma will be a. regulated one, within which man’s personality and freedom will be given maximum scope, and be enlightened in the social interest.
Postulate: 3 There is a negative correlation between the State's coercive power and Dharma. In the latter, the acceptance of regulation by man is voluntary because it blends with his individual and collective aspirations, whereas in the former regulations often conflict with aspirations and hence man is coerced to accept the regulation or suffer.
Postulate: 4 A society of persons of common origin, history or culture has a chiti (soulforce). It is this chiti which integrates and establishes harmony. Each nation has to search out its chiti and recognise it cons¬ciously. Consequently, each country must follow its own development strategy based on its chiti. If it tries to duplicate or replicate other nations, it will come to grief.
Postulate: 5 Based on the perception of chiti and recognition of dharma, an economic order can be evolved which rationalizes the mutual inter-balances of the life system, by seeking out the complementarities embedded in various conflicting interests in soci¬ety. Such an order will reveal the system of social choices based on an aggregation of individual values.
Postulate: 6 Any economy based on Integral Humanism, will take as given, besides the normal democratic fundamental rights, the Right to Food, the Right to Work, Right to Education, and the Right to Free Medical Care as basic rights.
Postulate: 7 The right to property is not fundamental, but economic regulation will be based on the comple¬mentarity that exists in the conflicting goals of social ownership of property and the necessity for providing incentive to save and to produce.
Postulate: 8 Development of the economic system for the Hinduva based Indian society is led by innovation [Shodh], guided by the principles of maximum reliance on indigenous resources [Swadeshi], by decentralization of power that emanates from four sources of knowledge, weapons, wealth, and land [Vikendrikaran], and by structuring a modern social hierarchy based on a mutually exclusive ownership of these four sources of power [Adhunik Varna]. . Thus, while rejecting any birth-based rights or discrimination as inconsistent with Vedanta philosophy, and requiring that co-option of any individual, irrespective of birth into any of the four Varnas thus created, is on the basis of the adherence to the discipline it requires.
Postulate: 9 That at the apex of this social hierarchy emanating from the Vikendrikaran of power, viz., the Shodhkartas who lead the innovation capability of a nation, i.e., the intellectuals, researchers, teachers etc., the co-option condition would be accomplishment in cognitive, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual intelligences, and the teaching of the same to all those in society who want to learn it.
These nine postulates represent the foundation of the Integral Humanism, which is the acronym for Hindutva Principles of Economic Development. Most of the established and popular slogans of Indian society emanate from one or more (in combi¬nation) of these postulates. For example, the electrifying call of the Freedom Movement for Swadeshi, or self - reliance is embed¬ded in Postulate 4. The popular demand for decentralization finds its source in Postulate 3. The modern internationally fashionable slogan of environmental care and pollution control, follows out of Postulate 5. The widespread scientific consensus that opti¬mum solutions can only be found in "systems analysis" is contained explicitly in Postulate 1. Mahatma Gandhi's advocacy of Trusteeship is implied in Postulates 2 & 7 read together. In other words, these seven postulates can singly or jointly conceptualize and synthesize the various goals which have stirred the soul of India (or its chiti). With these postulates, we now need to derive the practical guidelines for our economic development. To do that, for example take postulate 5.. First, we shall have to list out the various complementarities, second, work out a calculus of costs and benefits to integrate these various complementarities; and third, frame decision rules on how to make social choices based on divergent individual values. So a "calculus" of incentives and compensation for effecting the complementarity is needed. Such a calculus is known to economists, but which for shortage of space, I shall not elaborate here. To do that here would make this paper unduly technical and mathematical. It is not enough to have a calculus to aggregate the complementarities but also to frame decision rules on how to make consistent social choices based on individual values. It is not enough to say that in a democracy, social choices should be based on majority decision rule. The format for eliciting this majority needs to be spelt out, otherwise anamolies will result. For example, suppose we divide society into three groups - A: Agriculturists, M: Manufacturers, S: Workers and those in services. Let us assume that the society consisting of A, M, and S has to rank the projects of X; Fertilizer plant; Y: Steel mill; and Z: Hospital, in order of preference. Thus agriculturists (A) will rank X most important of all, Y second most important, and Z as least important. Therefore a choice is offered to them between X and Y, they would choose X. If a choice is between Y and Z, then Y will be chosen. Obviously if X is preferred to Y, and Y is preferred to Z, then X will of course be preferred to Z for consistency. In notation, I shall write: ‘→ ’ for ‘preferred to’ Assume: A : X→ Y→ Z
M : Y M : Y→ Z→ X
S : Z S : Z→ X→ Y
If a vote is taken on each pairs of projects, then we shall have: X→Y A+S=2 M=1 X→Y i.e., choose X over Y
Y Y→Z A+M=2 S=1 Y→Z i.e., choose Y over Z X→Z A=1 M+S=2 Z→X i.e., choose Z over X
This, in a majority decision without any format, a society may prefer with 2/3 majority, X over Y, Y over Z, and yet prefer over X ! To avoid such social inconsistency, we must ensure that A, M, and S consult each other and seek to find out their complementarity in choices, and then vote.
This is why creation of a basic consensus or harmony is so essential. Such a process is lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated. But this is the only way to optimize the nation's energies. But the process can be simplified by decentralization of political and economic authority. It cannot be achieved in a centralized society.
Again if we take Postulate 8, we find that Hindutva principles is in sync with the search for innovation as the driver of growth. Modern economic growth also is powered overwhelming (over 65% of GDP) by new innovation and techniques (e.g., internet). More capital and labour contributes less than 35% of growth in GDP. We must hence by proper policy for the young, realize and harvest the demographic potential.
China is the second largest world leader in young population today. But the youth population in that country will start shrinking from 2015, i.e., less than a decade from now because of lagged effect of their ill-thought one-child policy. Japanese and European total populations are fast aging, and will start declining in absolute numbers from next year. The US will however hold a steady trend thanks to a liberal policy of immigration, especially from Mexico and Phillipines. But even then the US will have in a decade hence a demographic shortage in skilled personnel. All currently developed countries thus experience a demographic deficit. India will not. Our past alleged liability, by a fortuitous turn of fate, has (now become to be globally regarded as our potential asset.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HINDUTVA
There remains a question whether this Hindutva-powered theory of economic development would be ultra vires within India of the current Constitution, since according to a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, the Indian Constitution cannot be amended to alter the “Basic Structure” of democratic and secular principles. It is my considered view, that the Articles of the Constitution in its present shape, i.e., without amendment, are sufficient to incorporate the Hindutva tenets of economic development.
In fact, the basic structure of our Constitution is consistent with the tradition of Hindutva. Ancient Bharat or Hindustan was of janapadas and monarchs. But it was unitary in the sense that the concept of chakravartin [propounded by Chanakya], i.e., of a sarvocch pramukh or chakravarti prevailed in emergencies and war, while in normal times the regional kings always deferred to a national class of sages and sanyasis for making laws and policies, and acted according to their advice. This is equivalent to Art.356 of the Constitution.
In that fundamental sense, while Hindu India may have been a union of kingdoms, it was fundamentally not a monarchy but a Republic. In a monarchy, the King made the laws and rendered justice, as also made policy but in Hindu tradition the king acted much as the President does in today’s Indian Republic. The monarch acted always according the wishes and decisions of the court-based advisers, mostly prominent sages or Brahmins. Thus Hindu India was always a Republic, and except for the reign of Ashoka, never a monarchy. Nations thus make Constitutions but Constitutions do not constitute nations.
Because India’s Constitution today is unitary with subsidiary federal principles for regional aspirations, and the judiciary and courts are national, therefore the Rajendra Prasad-monitored and Ambedkar-steered Constitution—making, was a continuation of the Hindu tradition. This is the second pillar ofl constitutionality for us—the Hindutva essence ! These aspects were known to us as our Smritis. Therefore, it is appropriate here to explore ways by which Hindutva can be blend into the present Constitution more explicitly.
The framers of the Constitution of India also seemed to be aware of the Hindu heritage of India. A perusal of the final copy of the Constitution, which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, is most instructive in this regard. The Constitution includes twenty-two illustrations within its main body. These illustrations are listed at the beginning of the Constitution. The illustrations are apparently chosen to represent various periods and eras of Indian history. And have been selected to represent the ethos and values of India, which the Constitution seeks to achieve through its written words. The framers of the Constitution appear to have had no doubt in their minds that the Hindu heritage of this country is the ballast on which the spirit of the Constitution sails.
In a Supreme Court judgment [(1995) SCC 576], headed by Justice J.S.Verma held: “It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the presumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on Hindu religion as opposed to other religions or that the use of the word Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practicing any religion other than the Hindu religion… and it may well be that these words are used in a speech to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian cultural ethos… There is no such presumption permissible in law contrary to the several Constitution Bench decisions”. This approach is now the law of the land. A Supreme Court constitutional Bench headed by Justice P.D.Gajendragadkar, delivered a judgement [(1966) 3 SCR 242] wherein the Bench commented, “Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion on creed”
Hindus instead have always believed in shashtrarthas [debate] to convert others to their point of view. Hence, even when Buddha challenged the ritualistic practices of Hindus or Mahavira and Nanak gave fresh perspectives on Hindu concepts there was never any persecution or denunciation of these great seers. Indeed these visionary seers are considered as having benefited Hinduism.
Thus, the single most important theme of Hinduism is the freedom of the spirit to question, assimilated, synthesis and then re-question is the process of inquiry in Hindu theology search and Just as science insists on freedom in exploring the physical world, Sanatana Dharma embodies freedom in the exploration of the spiritual realm. Hindutva thus has a spiritual scientific quality.
This Hindu-ness or Hindutva has also been our identifying characteristic, by which we have been recognized world-wide. The territory in which Hindus lived was known as Hindustan, i.e., a specific area of a collective of persons who are bonded together by this Hindu-ness. The Salience thus was given religious and spiritual significance by tirth yatra, kumbh mela, common festivals, and in the celebration of events in the Ithihasa, viz., Ramayana and Mahabharata. The religious minorities of Muslims and Christians also, according to recent DNA studies on Indians show, are descendants of Hindus i.e., through conversion and not of hordes from abroad as propagated by British historians and their tutees in India.
Hindu Rashtra thus defined, is our nation that is a modern Republic today, whose roots are also in the long unbroken Hindu civilisational history. Throughout this history we were a Hindu Republic and not a monarchy [a possible but weak exception being Asoka's reign]. In this ancient Republican concept, the king did not make policy or proclaim the law.
The intellectually accomplished (but not birth-based or determined) elite in the society, known as Brahmans, framed the laws and state policy and the King (known as Kshatriya) implemented it. Thus it was ordained. “I deem that country as the most virtuous land which promotes the healthy and friendly combination of Brahma and Kshattra powers for an integrated upliftment of the society along with the divine powers of the Gods of mundane power of the material resources” -Yajurveda XX-25. Hindutva hence, is our innate nature, while Hindustan is our territorial body, but Hindu Rashtra is our republican soul. Hindu panth [religion] is however a theology of faith. Even if an Indian has a different faith from a Hindu, he or she can still be possessed of Hindutva. Since India was 100 percent Hindu a millennium ago, the only way any significant group could have a different faith in today's India is if they were converted from Hindu faith, or are of those whose ancestors were Hindus. Conversion of faith does not have to imply conversion to another culture or nature. Therefore, Hindutva can remain to be interred in a non-Hindu in India.
Hence, we can say that Hindustan is a country of Hindus and those others whose ancestors were Hindus. Acceptance with pride this reality by non-Hindus is to accept Hindutva. Hindu Rashtra is therefore a republican nation of Hindus and of those of other faiths who have Hindutva in them. This formulation settles the question of identity of the Hindustani or Indian.
Hindutva however has to be inculcated in our people from values and norms that emerge out of Hindu renaissance, that is, a Hindu theology which is shorn of the accumulated but unacceptable baggage of the past as also by co-opting new scientific discoveries, perceptions and by synergizing with modernity.
This is the only way that Hindustan can become a modern Hindu Rashtra, thus achieving independence after having recovered our freedom [in 1947]—as Parmacharya the Kanchi Pontiff had wanted.
Hindu-ness of outlook on life had been called Hindutva by Swami Vivekananda also and Hindutva's political perspective was subsequently developed by Veer Savarkar. Deendayal Upadhaya briefly dealt with the concept of Hindutva when he wrote about chiti in his seminal work: Integral Humanism. The focus of all three profound thinkers is the multi-dimensional development of the Hindus as an individuals harmonizing material needs with spiritual advancement and which needs then have to be aggregated and synchronized to foster a united community on the collective concept of Hindutva.
Deendayal Upadhyaya outlined how to modernize the concepts of Hindutva as follows:
“We have to discard the status quo mentality and usher in a new era. Indeed our efforts at reconstruction need not be clouded by prejudice or disregard for all that is inherited from our past. On the other hand, there is no need to cling to past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility”.
Thus, we should invite Muslims and Christians to join us Hindus on the basis of common ancestry or even seek their return to our fold as Hindus, in this grand endeavour as Hindustanis, on the substance of our shared and common ancestry. This is the essence of renaissance.
Hence, the essentiality of Hinduism, or alternatively the core quality of being a Hindu, which we may call as our Hindu-ness [i.e., Hindutva], is that theologically there is no danger of Hindutva, or the advocacy of the same, of ever degenerating into fundamentalism. In fact, so liberal, sophisticated, and focused on inward evolution is Hindu theology, that in a series of Supreme Court judgments, various Constitutional Benches found it hard even to define Hinduism and Hindutva as anything but a way of life, as we discover from an useful review of these judgments by Bal Apte MP [6].
The identity of Indian is thus Hindustani; a Hindu Rashtra i.e., a republican nation of Hindus and those others [non-Hindus] who proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. It is this acknowledgement that remains pending today. We can accept Muslims and Christians as part of our Hindustani family when they proudly acknowledge this fact of common ancestry and accept furthermore that change religion does not require change of culture.
Thus the cultural identity of India is undeniably, immutably, and obviously its Hindu-ness, that is Hindutva. A de-falsified Indian history would leave no one in doubt about it. In the current History textbooks, presently prescribed in our educational institutions however it is being clandestinely propagated that India has belonged culturally to those who forcibly occupied it.
Aptly summarized in the writings of Dr.Ambedkar, and his oration in the Constituent Assembly for a strong united country. In his scholarly paper presented in a 1916 Columbia University seminar[7] then a mere graduate student studying for a Ph.D. in economics, had stated: “It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of it's culture. It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and much more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end”.
Ambedkar wrote in this vein several such brilliant books, but alas, Nehru and his cohorts so thoroughly frustrated him and electorally humiliated him that in the end bitterness drove him to his sad end. We must honour him now as a great Rajrishi and co-opt his writings as part of the Hindutva literature.
That is, by a failure to usher a renaissance after 1947 India has lost her opportunity to cleanse the accumulated dirt and unwanted baggage of the past. The nation missed a chance to demolish the birth-based caste theory as Ambedkar had wanted to do. The battering that the concept of Hindu unity and Indian identity has taken at the hands of Nehruvian secularists since 1947 has led to the present social malaise. Thus, even though Hindus are above 80 percent of the population in India, they have not been able to understand their roots in, and obligations to, the Hindu society in a pluralistic democracy.
CONCLUSION
The main theme in this paper is that we need a new ideological framework for the theory of economic development that can unite the Indian nation. I believe that if every individual be motivated by equipping him with fundamental concepts of Hindutva, that requires adherence to principles enumerated in nine Postulates, empowered by adequate modern education and inculcation of scientific spirit of inquiry, then it is possible to bring about a national renaissance, and make the Indian people happily strive for global economic power.
Is there a contradiction between Hindutva and modernity? Modernization is the process of modernity. Modernity may be defined as a state of mind or mindset that entails a receptive attitude to change, transparency and accountability. The process of reaching that mindset is modernization.
Hindutva is the quality of being a Hindu, namely the Hinduness of a person. We have already identified beliefs which include the quality of being receptive to change as immutable law of change, imbedded in the concept of dharmachakra pravartana.
Hindu theology also extols transparency and accountability in the concepts of satyam, shivam and sundaram, and in the concept of karma which is nothing but the concept of accountability. The concept of yama and niyama define the code for Hindus which is an ingredient of Hindutva.
Hence, there is no conflict or contradiction between Hindutva and Modernization. What needs to be discussed is how to inculcate Hindutva so that we can be acquire a modern mindset and how the modernization process can be structured so that Hindutva can be imbibed in our nature through our educational and family system.
Modernization is embedded in mind development that takes place because of growing stock of knowledge. This knowledge has to be pursued with character that seeks to use knowledge to liberate and empower the human and not to enslave him. Thus religious faith has helped to develop the character necessary for imbibing knowledge.
In a nutshell then, the Hindutva Principles for Economic Development is founded on the following clear concepts: First is the necessacity to harmonise the Hindutva values as enshrined in Sanatana Dharma, with efficient pursuit of material progress. Second, is the ancient non-birth based decentralization of power embodied in the Varna system. Third, innovation--driven economic growth that is nurtured by all five dimensions of Intelligence. Fourth, an overriding national identity that is rooted in the ancient continuing civilizational history. Fifth, the Gandhian concept of trusteeship and philanthropy.
REFERENCES
[1] Bruce Rich: To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India [Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA, 2010]
[2] Subramanian Swamy: Indian Economic Planning—An Alternative Approach, Vikas, New Delhi, 1971
[3] Upadhyaya,Deendayal:Integral Humanism,Navchetan Press, Delhi, 1965
[4] Goldberg,Phillip: The American Veda, Routledge, New York, 2010
[5] Girija O.V:”A Critical study of Modern Indian Education” Ph.D Thesis University of Madras(2008)
[6] Apte, Bal: Supreme Court on Hindutva, India First Foundation, 2005.
[7] Ambedkar, B.R.:Indian Antiquary, vol. XLI, May 1917 p.81-95]
No comments:
Post a Comment