How Is RSS Hinduism Not Chauvinist or Anti-Muslim | S Gurumurthy Explains

New Delhi: Swaminathan Gurumurthy, writer, journalist, chartered accountant and a part time director on central board of the Reserve Bank of India, has challenged the detractors of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who have been abusing it for decades as chauvinist and anti-Muslim. The scholar took to social media platform X and confronted them with the unchallengeable truth about the RSS philosophy which they either don't know or they conceal. S Gurumurthy has tried to put his explanation on why RSS is not chauvinist and anti-Muslim as claimed by its haters by citing thoughts and statements of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Maharishi Aurobindo and Supreme Court. The scholar has also shred the light on RSS' Hindu nationalism and tried to prove how it was not its innovation, but rather adopted from Swami Vivekananda and Maharishi Aurobindo asking the detractors, will they even call them anti-Muslim?

In a series of 65 tweets spread across 4 different threads, S Gurumurthy has tried to prove RSS detractors including the seculars, the Congress , secular journalists and the wokeist liberals of the world that:

1. One, the RSS concept of Hindu nationalism is not RSS' innovation. It has adopted it from Swami Vivekananda and Maharishi Aurobindo.
2. Two, Jawahalal Nehru had  accepted that the Hindu nationalism forcefully preached by Swami Vivekananda [and adopted by RSS] was not anti Muslim or anyone else.
3. Three, Mahatma Gandhi’s views that India’s unity is wholly because of Hindu religiosity and the Muslims and minorities ought to be assimilated, which is also the RSS view that minorities should be assimilated into the core culture of Bharat.
4. Four, the Supreme Court has ruled that the RSS concept of Hindutva which is the foundation of Hindu nationalism is not religious or communal but constitutes the national ethos, culture and way of life of the people.
5. Five, citing the Encyclopaedia of Britannica and Dr Radhakrishnan, SC ruled that Hinduism, unlike other religions is not based on any particular God, belief or dogma and cannot be limited to the concept of mere religion.

How RSS concept of Hindu nationalism not its innovation but adopted from Swami Vivekananda, Maharishi Aurobindo, Pandit Nehru Gurumurthy explains 

S Gurumurthy says that his deep involvement with a mix of strange and diverse domains – religion and spirituality to law, journalism, economics, politics, anthropology academics and geopolitics for half a century enables him to look at RSS from outside as from within.

"RSS is the sum of a century of high penance by thousands of pracharaks and lakhs of swayamsevaks living their whole life, without their names known in their lifetime or after, for Swami Vivekananda’s mission of “man-making and nation-building”.

“But RSS’ adversaries trash its concept of Hindu nationalism as narrow, anti-Muslim. But if I prove RSS’s Hindu nationalism was not its innovation, but it has adopted it from Swami Vivekananda and Maharishi Aurobindo, will they call them anti Muslim?” he said.

“If I prove that Hindu nationalism preached by Swami Vivekananda was expressly accepted by Nehru what will the adversaries of RSS say? Will they say that Nehru who endorsed a narrow, anti Muslim idea was as bad as RSS?” Gurumurthy said.

He goes on saying, “If I prove Mahatma Gandhi held the same view as the RSS that India’s unity lies in Hinduism and minorities must be assimilated into national mainstream, will the RSS baiters say Gandhi was Hindu chauvinist & communal? If I prove that the Supreme Court has ruled that Hindutva which is the foundation of Hindu nationalism constituted the national ethos, way of life and culture of Bharat, will the detractors of RSS say the highest court is wrong.”

“Here is the irrefutable proof that Swami Vivekananda & Maharishi Aurobindo swore by Hindu Nationalism, Mahatma Gandhi swore by Hinduism as the basis of India’s unity & nationhood, Nehru accepted Hindu nationalism & Supreme Court endorsed Hindutva.”

“Swami Vivekananda very eloquently, forcefully preached the gospel of nationalism. His nationalism was Hindu nationalism, it had its roots in the Hindu religion, culture. This was not in any way anti-Muslim or anti-anyone else.” Who said this? Pandit Nehru."

“Pandit Nehru did not just say off the cuff media response or extempore speech. He consciously wrote it in his most famous book Glimpses of World History (Page 437). He must have edited the draft many times before it was printed. He said more. It (is) not easy... to draw a line between Hindu nationalism and true nationalism. The two overlap as India is the only home of Hindus, they form a majority there.’ This is  what  Nehru wrote again in Glimpses of World History (Page 720)”.

When Pandit Nehru accepted Hindu nationalism in 1935

S Gurumurthy has mentioned about the event when Pandit Nehru in 1935 unequivocally accepted Hindu nationalism in 1935 and its culture in 1937 as the basis of Bharat's unity.

"Nehru unequivocally accepted Hindu nationalism in 1935. He again wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine US in January 1937 “Indian background and unity is essentially cultural; not religious in the narrow sense of the word”.

"In 1935 Nehru accepted Hindu nationalism, in 1937 culture as the basis of Bharat’s unity. Earlier to that in 1925, RSS had adopted both as its core thought. Nehru’s father Motilal Nehru praised Dr Hedgewar the founder of RSS as we see later," Gurumurthy said.

“Nehru accepted Hindu nationalism of Vivekananda who had “eloquently and forcefully preached” it half a century before, & wrote culture which is not narrow religion as the basis of Bharat’s unity – a decade after RSS adopted both.”

Congress party (usurper of the original congress brand) secular parties, intellectuals, journalists & Rahul, who swear by Nehru might not have read his writings. If Rahul reads this thread can he deny Nehru owned Hindu nationalism? If Nehru did, can he disown Nehru?"

Gurumurthy on how Mahatma Gandhi’s views prove that India’s unity is wholly because of Hindu religiosity?

S Gurumurthy in another series of tweets explained how Mahatma Gandhi’s views that India’s unity is wholly because of Hindu religiosity and the Muslims and minorities ought to be assimilated, which is also the RSS view that minorities should be assimilated into the core culture of Bharat.

“Now Gandhi. His basic text is ‘Hind Swaraj’. He it wrote in 1909. As late as in 1938 [July 13, 1938] Gandhi said that “after thirty stormy years though which I have since passed, I have seen nothing to make me alter the views expounded in Hind Swaraj,” he said.

“Gandhi said: We were one nation before the British came. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It is because we were one nation they could establish one kingdom. Subsequently they divided us” and explained how we were one nation.”

"Gandhi also said: What do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of who established Setubandha (Rameshwar) in the South, Jagganath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were no fools”.

“Gandhi went on and said They knew that worship of God could well have been performed at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had Ganges in their homes. But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature.”

“He added they [our ancestors] therefore, argued it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India and fired the people with an idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world.”

“Saying we Indians are one as no two Englishmen are and our men travelled throughout India either on foot or in bullock carts. They learned one another’s languages and there was no aloofness between them” he went on to our national integration,” Gurumurthy quoted Gandhi as saying.

On being asked “Has Mohammedanism not unmade that nation? Gandhi responded: India cannot cease to be one nation because people of different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not destroy the nation; they merge in it”.

Gandhi ends “A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it. A country must have a faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country” On minorities being assimilated into national mainstream RSS and Gandhi converge.

“Sonia-Rahul period Congressmen may not have heard of Hind Swaraj. I would ask them to read it and after reading it. After reading it, can they deny Gandhi’s thought on the idea of India was aligned to the RSS thought on the idea of Hindu India,” Gurumurthy said.

Maharishi Aurobindo. In historic Uttarpara Speech he said: “no longer nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith. It is Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves, with it it grows."

Aurobindo concluded his Uttarpara address: “When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish. The Sanatan Dharma, that is nationalism”.

Rahul Gandhi would have heard of Aurobindo, but not of his celebrated Uttarpara speech which Aurobindo thoroughly revised and republished in his magazine Karmayogin. If Rahul reads this thread, can he deny Hindu nationalism is Aurobindo’s, not RSS’".

Gurumurthy recalls when Supreme Court ruled RSS concept of Hindutva constitutes national ethos

S Gurumurthy in another tweet thread goes on to say: 

“Supreme Court: The election manifestos of BJP and Shivsena for 1991 elections had projected Hindutva as their political philosophy. Petitions were filed against those elected saying as Hindutva is religious appeal elections should be set aside.”

“In 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and ruled based on its own earlier constitutional bench decisions that Hinduism Hindu and Hindutva cannot be confined to the limits of religion alone. I am giving the quotes from its judgement.”

“No precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu’, `Hindutva' and `Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage”.

"'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. In the face of the decisions [of Supreme Court] `Hindutva' or `Hinduism' per se cannot be assumed to mean and equate with fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry”.

“Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism”.

“In view of the Constitution Bench rulings `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' are not to be construed as unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people”.

“That `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religions or as professing communalism, proceeds from an improper appreciation of their true meaning emerging from the earlier authorities of this Court.”

“The Court had relied on a 1976 constitution bench judgement in which it had held that a Christian married into a Hindu family and the child born brought up as Christian can be part of the Hindu undivided family as Hinduism is not limited to religion.”

“In that judgement the Court had quoted extensively from the Encyclopaedia of Britannica on what constitutes Hindus and Hinduism. I give those quotes here:”

• In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any.
• Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others tolerant, leaving others including both Hindus and non-Hindus - whatever creed and worship practices suit them best.
• A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu. A Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable.
• He tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable.
• The core of the Hindu religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one god or many.
• Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definitions, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms.
• Hinduism is then both S civilisation and a conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder, nor  central authority, hierarchy or organisation.

“The Court also cited the philosopher statesman Dr S Radhakrishnan who had said “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,” Gurumurthy said.

“SC also noted that the term `Hindu', according to Dr. Radhakrishnan, had originally a territorial and not a credal significance. It implied residence in a well defined geographical area. I give his other quotes relied on by SC,” he added.

“Hinduism does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites; it does not satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more,” he said.

On that basis SC said that “The usual tests applied in relation to any recognised religion or religious creed in the world turn out to be inadequate in dealing with the Hindu religion”.

Gurumurthy on how SC ruled Hinduism is not limited to the concept of mere religion

Saying “Any recognised religion or creed subscribes to a body of set theological beliefs” and asking “Does this test apply to Hindu religion?” In answering this question, we base ourselves mainly on the exposition of Dr. Radhakrishnan who said:

• Unlike other countries, India can claim that philosophy in ancient India was not an auxiliary to any other science or art, but always held a prominent position of independence.
• In all the fleeting centuries of history in all the vicissitudes through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible.
• It has held fast to certain psychological traits which constitute its special heritage, and they will be the characteristic marks of the Indian people so long as they are privileged to have a separate existence.

SC also cited Justices AM Ahmedi and PS Bharucha, who in the famous Ayodhya case, said: "Hinduism is a tolerant faith. That enabled Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism to find shelter & support upon this land".

SC also noted that “It is remarkable the broad sweep of Hindu religion has been eloquently described by historian Arnold Toynbee who said Hinduism has the same outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim religions of the Western half of the world."

Toynbee added that “Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more than one valid approach to truth and to salvation and different approaches are not only compatible with each other... but are complementary”

To summarise, Supreme Court said Hindutva is not per se religious. It is the national ethos, culture and way of life. It is per se, not against any other religion. Most importantly A 7- judge bench of SC has rejected the review petition against the 1995 ruling.

Rahul or anyone in Congress or secular parties would not have read this long judgement. The would not have known that the SC had said that the concept of Hindutva which is the political philosophy of BJP is the national ethos, way of life and culture.

Now as they know Hindutva is not only not communal nor against Islam or other religion and constitutes the ethos, culture and way of life of the people of India, will they apologise to the people for telling lies that Hindutva anti other religions.

To summarise:

• One, the RSS concept of Hindu nationalism is not RSS is not its innovation. It has adopted it from Swami Vivekananda and Maharishi Aurobindo.
• Two, Jawahalal Nehru had  accepted that the Hindu nationalism forcefully preached by Swami Vivekananda [and adopted by RSS] was not anti Muslim or anyone else.
• Three, Mahatma Gandhi’s views that India’s unity is wholly because of Hindu religiosity and the Muslims and minorities ought to be assimilated, which is also the RSS view that minorities should be assimilated into the core culture of Bharat.
• Four, the Supreme Court has ruled that the RSS concept of Hindutva which is the foundation of Hindu nationalism is not religious or communal but constitutes the national ethos, culture and way of life of the people.
• Five, citing the Encyclopaedia of Britannica and Dr Radhakrishnan, SC ruled that Hinduism, unlike other religions is not based on any particular God, belief or dogma and cannot be limited to the concept of mere religion.

Will seculars, Congress , wokes still dispute these irrefutable testimonies, Gurumurthy asks   

After giving such a detailed account on RSS' Hinduism by citing Vivekananda, Nehru, Gandhi, and even the Supreme Court, Gurumurthy asked will the seculars, Congress , or the wokes still question RSS and Hinduism. 

“Will the secular leaders, secular parties including the Congress , secular journalists and the Wokeist liberals of the world dispute these irrefutable testimonies and still call RSS communal and Hindu chauvinist? If they do will they not be dishonest?” Gurumurhty said.

“I challenge the detractors of RSS to dispute or deny the facts brought out in this thread. If they can't will they stop abusing the RSS philosophy?”