IGNOUMATIC

M.S. Golwalkar, one of the foremost ideologues of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is widely recognized for his contributions to the development of Hindu nationalism in India. His ideas significantly shaped the discourse on Hindu identity, nationalism, and the role of religion in the nation-state. His views were largely articulated through his influential works, particularly “We, or Our Nationhood Defined” (1938), which remains a cornerstone for understanding the ideology of the RSS and other right-wing Hindu nationalist groups. This essay critically examines Golwalkar’s views on Hindu nationalism, with an emphasis on his vision for a Hindu nation, his rejection of secularism, and his views on minorities.

1. The Concept of Hindu Nationalism

Golwalkar’s understanding of Hindu nationalism was deeply rooted in his interpretation of India’s ancient culture, religion, and civilization. He believed that India’s national identity was inseparable from Hinduism, which he saw as the defining characteristic of the Indian nation. According to Golwalkar, Hinduism was not merely a religion but a comprehensive cultural and civilizational framework that defined the ethos of India. In his view, the unity of the nation was inherently tied to the unity of the Hindu people, who were considered the original and true inhabitants of the land.

Golwalkar articulated his vision of the Hindu nation as one that would be governed by Hindu values and traditions, where the Hindu way of life would be dominant. He viewed Hinduism as a unifying force that could overcome the divisions of caste, region, and language. In his formulation, India was the “Hindusthan”, and any individual or group living in India should either embrace Hindu culture and identity or risk being alienated from the nation.

2. Golwalkar’s Views on the Nation and its Boundaries

One of the most striking elements of Golwalkar’s ideology is his strong opposition to the idea of a multi-religious, pluralistic society. Golwalkar rejected the secular framework that came to define the Indian state post-independence. He believed that the very concept of a secular state—one that treats all religions equally—was a foreign imposition and a distortion of India’s true identity. Golwalkar’s criticism of secularism was rooted in his belief that the Indian nation should be a Hindu nation, and any attempt to integrate other religions was tantamount to weakening the nation’s cultural and religious foundations.

In his view, India’s identity should be defined by its Hindu civilization and culture, and any foreign influence, particularly from Islamic and Christian traditions, was seen as an external threat. Golwalkar argued that while non-Hindus could live in India, they should adhere to the dominant Hindu cultural framework. He famously stated that the minorities in India, especially Muslims and Christians, should pledge loyalty to the Hindu nation, or else they would be considered outsiders. In this way, Golwalkar’s views promoted the idea of a mono-cultural, homogeneous society, in direct contrast to the pluralistic vision put forward by the Indian Constitution.

3. Golwalkar’s Vision for Hindu Unity

Golwalkar placed significant emphasis on the unity of the Hindu community, particularly in the face of external threats, both from colonial powers and from other religious groups. He believed that the Hindu community had to shed its internal divisions, particularly the caste system, in order to form a united front. For Golwalkar, the ideal Hindu society was one that transcended caste distinctions and was united by a common cultural and spiritual identity. This idea of unity was central to his vision of Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation).

Golwalkar’s thoughts on unity were influenced by his understanding of ancient Indian history, especially the period before the advent of Muslim rule in India. He believed that during ancient times, India had been a united and prosperous civilization, and the advent of Islam and Christianity disrupted this unity. In his writings, he referred to foreign invaders and colonial rulers as enemies of Hinduism, portraying Hindu unity as the key to resisting these forces.

4. Golwalkar’s Views on Minorities

Golwalkar’s stance on minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, has been a subject of intense controversy. His views on these communities were firmly grounded in the belief that their presence in India was an aberration. He argued that Islamic and Christian invasions had led to the destruction of India’s cultural identity, and, as such, Muslims and Christians were considered “outsiders.” This perception led to his belief that India should primarily be a homeland for Hindus, and that Muslims and Christians who were living in India should accept the supremacy of Hindu culture or be relegated to a secondary status.

In “We, or Our Nationhood Defined”, Golwalkar famously argued that the Muslim community could not be integrated into the Indian national identity because Islam had an external allegiance, i.e., the Islamic world or the caliphate. Golwalkar also claimed that Muslim loyalty to the Indian state was suspect because of their religious allegiance to the larger Muslim world. Similarly, he viewed Christianity as a foreign religion that owed allegiance to the Pope in Rome, further distancing Christians from the Indian nation.

His views on minorities were rooted in a Hindu supremacist ideology, which equated nationalism with religious identity. Consequently, minorities were expected to either adopt the Hindu way of life or remain marginalized in the national discourse.

5. The Legacy and Criticism of Golwalkar’s Ideology

Golwalkar’s ideas have had a profound and lasting impact on the RSS and the larger Hindu nationalist movement, particularly through the work of his successors. His views on Hindu unity, the rejection of secularism, and the marginalization of minorities have shaped the rhetoric of right-wing Hindu groups in post-independence India.

However, his ideology has been sharply criticized for promoting an exclusionary nationalism that undermines the pluralistic and democratic principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Critics argue that Golwalkar’s vision of the Hindu nation is fundamentally at odds with India’s diverse and multi-religious society. His approach to minority communities has been accused of fostering religious intolerance, and his rejection of secularism has been criticized for undermining the inclusiveness of the Indian state.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, M.S. Golwalkar’s views on Hindu nationalism are centered on the idea that India should be a Hindu Rashtra, defined by Hindu values and culture. His rejection of secularism and his exclusionary stance towards minorities have made his ideology deeply controversial. While his views were embraced by Hindu nationalist organizations like the RSS, they stand in contrast to the pluralistic vision of India, which emphasizes the equal treatment of all religions and communities. Golwalkar’s legacy continues to shape debates on the nature of Indian identity, nationalism, and the role of religion in the Indian state.