Personally I hold that if there was any migration it was from India to outside, not from outside to India. I reject the hypothesis which maintains that Hindus are foreigners and India was a no man's land inhabited by only aboriginals. Following this theory all foreigners can be put on par with the Hindus. So the theory is repeated ad nauseam. Admitting, for argument sake (only for argument sake) that Hindus came from outside, the fact remains that Hinduism has grown -With the history of this country and has become an inseparable part of this country. Hindus have throughout history, fought for this country, defended this country and died for this country. Here they grew as a people, a great race, propounded various religious beliefs and a philosophical system, evolving a high culture, and have beautified this country. The identification is total. We just want you to recognise this total identification. Without India Hindus have no other place to call their own and if there are no Hindus there is nobody to fight and die for this country as the motherland.
After independence the Government have been distributing the Tamrapatras to the freedom fighters. Whenever it has been possible for them to confer Tamrapatras on a Muslim gentleman or a Christian they would always be enthusiastic because they are searching for such gentlemen desperately. Please look at the list of the recipients and count how many Christians have secured it. Well the less said the better.
Nor do I hold Indian Christians foreigners. What is the meaning of the term Indian Christian? Analyse, the phrase. It is a Hindu who has (or whose forefathers had) embraced Christianity. Here the word Indian means Hindu, that is, you are basically a Hindu. Similarly, who is an Indian Mussalman? It is a Hindu who has (or whose ancestors have) embraced Islam. Here again Indian connotes Hindu. Have you ever come across the expression Indian Hindu? Never, for the simple reason that the world believes that Indian means Hindu. If so, can a Hindu be a foreigner in India?
The attitude of R.S.S. towards any individual or any group of individuals is determined not on the basis of religious beliefs but by a different criterion, a different touchstone. What is that criterion? It is : 'what is your attitude towards this country, towards the people of this country, towards the integrity, independence and glory of this country, towards the welfare and domestic happiness of the millions and millions people of this country? It is on this basis that the attitude of the R.S.S. towards you is determined. If you love this country as your motherland, our countrymen as your brothers and do not entertain any ambition to inject any friction in their happy life by imposing your will upon them automatically you become our brother, because you consider honestly our mother as yours. But if you hold India as a pasture to impose your will, our attitude towards you changes. That is the R.S.S. criterion.
Though an Arya Samajist does not believe in image- worship, never does he desecrate it. That makes him a blood-brother with the rest. Never try to impose your idea of God on the others.
There is one small section of Christians who call themselves nationalist church. They are the first bold section of Indian Christians who have freed themselves from the Church orthodoxy and have organised themselves on nationalist lines. It is a small number. It will take time. I wish it should grow and I hope it will grow. I want to believe that the Indian Christian is basically Indian, a man of this soil and a man who has eaten this salt. He might have changed his form of worship but he has not changed his ancestors.. He cannot change his blood. Love of the country cannot so easily be erased. The call of the race spirit, and patriotism will surely one day undo excess of other things.
if it does, then you must disown them. I have not come across any such disowning of them by any Christian quarter. If I do not know it I am open to correction. I would withdraw it.
I spoke on certain premises, I explained them,. and they can be further explained if time permits. If my premises are wrong then nobody will be more happy than myself to be corrected.
As was mentioned there is a past. Since the ghost of the past always haunts our mind let us seek a process of reconciliation. To begin with do you think this past is a story you should be proud of? Remember the inquisitions, the persecutions fraudulent conversions and accompanying cruelty. It is a sad story and a bad story. Then what should be done? Is it wise to inject the explosive past into the present which can only damage the future? The answer is not to ignore, turn a blind eye or to justify the unhappy events of the past. There is a happy way out which I would like to illustrate with an example.
It is an example from the history of England. There was a queen called Mary Tudor. She was a Catholic. Her father and brother who ruled earlier were both opposed to the Pope of Rome and the Catholic Church. So when Mary Tudor a devoted Catholic Christian ascended the throne, she was anxious to undo what her predecessors had done and restore Papal supremacy and the predominance of the Catholic faith in England. She lost the sense of proportion and overdid the job. She introduced the Stake i.e. burning religious heretics alive. Hitherto burning people alive in the name of religion was confined to Spain. She imported the ugly practice into England and thought she was serving Roman Catholic interests. It is a dark chapter in the history of the English people.
Today there are many Roman Catholics living in England but none of them own or condone what Mary did in the name of their religion. No psychological affinity with the event or its author is there. Or else a harmonious British national life would not have been possible at all. SO they disown it. Once they disown it they need not be ashamed of it.
Why do you people own those unchristian things perpetrated in the name of Christianity? Disown that ugly past. Or else how can you acquire that psychological affinity with the Hindu? There is much in Indian history for you to own, cherish and be proud of. It is your heritage, a heritage enriched by your forefathers whose blood flows and stirs in your nerves and veins. Own it.
You spoke of Hindus being very tolerant. From my experiences cannot agree with this. In the district of Kanyakumari you can see what the Hindus particularly the R.S.S. have written on the walls and the posters. They have abused not only the priests and others but even our deep Faith, Christ and Our Lady.
Only five months back Hindus attacked the Churches with no provocation caused by the Christians. People were shot dead. I am coming from a family where there are R.S.S. members. There were Marriages and other celebrations together till last year. How could enemity be created in such families if there was tolerance? Muslims and Hindus were working together in the district. How could this hatred be created if at all Hindus were that tolerant. I have tasted it myself. I want to know your reactions.
To begin with, the Hindu Society is having its own problems, its evils like Untouchability and others. They are certainly stigmas on the Hindu society. Hindu reformers and organisations are doing their best to wipe them out. It is our concern. Take untouchability. It dwells in the heart of the caste Hindus. If that is plucked out, the problem will be solved but not by converting the downtrodden. Nobody is justifying these ills and evils. Birth of the R.S.S. itself was due to the social ills that have gripped the Hindu people. On that count no certificate need be given to the Hindu society. But it is our society and they are all our people.
Secondly Brahmin domination and Brahminism exploiting others. Had it been in my hands I would have awarded a big Prize for this wonderful discovery. What is the percentage of Brahmins in India? Look at any Indian village and see who the Brahmins are? A school teacher and a Post-master. Do they pose such a great threat or a danger to the other people of this country? Within the Hindu society there are E.V. Ramaswami Naicker and others who can abuse Rama and Krishna. It is only reflective of the catholicity of the Hindu tradition. But do you want to live under illusions?
Go to a village in the Tamilnadu. Ramayana in Tamil by Kamban is recited and heard with the same devotion and rapt attention as it :s recited in other languages and heard in other provinces. The ordinary villager in Tamilnadu also rejoices or weeps as the stories of Rama and Krishna are narrated. I am citing only one example of a common emotion being evoked. That is the basis of a people and a nation not what Ramaswami Naicker says on a plateform although Periyar E.V.R. Naicker, was in his own way, devoted to the reform of the Hindu society.
As for the troubles in Tamilnadu, as long as the Hindus are silent, quiet and easy-going, they are good boys. The moment they resist and retaliate (a time comes when they must retaliate) they become demons and devils. The treatment that has been given to the Vivekananda Rock Memorial at Kanyakumari by the Christians is the first phase, the reaction followed afterwards. What has been done in Nilakkal by the Christians is resisted by Hindus afterwards.
R.S.S. does not justify anybody who has uttered a single word of hatred towards another just because he is a Christian. It disowns such literature and its authors. But I do not want you to believe that the Christians in the Kanyakumari district are innocent lambs. Certainly they are not.
A religious group behaving in a particular political pattern is unhealthy; in fact that is the story of partition. If you are all assured that there is no direction so suggested, no whispering from your spiritual sources as to for whom to vote and for whom not to vote I will be the first person to rejoice over it.
When I first came over here and went out to Ramawadi nearby in Pune along with my friend we were stopped on our way and we were accused as Chinese spies. The Nagas are still migrating away. We find that the culture and the race features are entirely different from the people here. And I am also inclined to compare the ignorance of the Nagas with the literate Indians.