Masters On Islamist and Hindutva Thinkers

"BLOOD BROTHERS, SWORN ENEMIES"
A comparative study on the ideas of Maulana Maududi (a Muslim) and

M.S. Golwalkar (a Hindu), with particular reference to their views on
the relationship between religion and the state.
M.A. RELIGION STUDIES THESIS

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
2001
STUDENT: David Radford
ID: 9810815F
'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Chapter 1- The Socio-Historical Contexts for Maududi and Golwalkar
I. Personal Context
A. Maulana Sayyid Abu'l A'la Maududi (1903-1979) - Personal History and
Involvement with the Jama'at-I-Islami
B. Madhav Sadashiv (M.S.) Golwalkar (1906-1973) - Personal History and
Involvement with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
II. Historical and Political Contexts
A. British Colonial Rule
B. The Khilafat Movement
C. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966)
III. Religious Context
A. Confrontation and Accommodation - The struggle of Islam in the majority nonMuslim context of India
B. The Rise of Hindu Nationalism in the face of Muslim/British/Christian and the
influence of Orientalism.
IV. The Modem Phenomena of Religious Fundamentalism
Conclusion
Chapter 2 - The Question of Identity - Who or what is a Muslim/Hindu?

I.
29 .
Maududi
A. Right Knowledge
1. Tawheed - The Unity of the Godhead
2. Hakkimiya - The Exclusive Sovereignty of God
B. Right People ~ Obedience, subservience
C. Right Lives - Who is a true Muslim and what does Islam mean?
II. Golwalkar
A. The Problem - 'Our National Malady' - Loss of Living National Consciousness
B. The Antidote - Restoring National Consciousness - 'Ideal Hindu Manhood'
Conclusion
'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'
Chapter 3- The Question of Identity - Who are we - the Community,

Nation, Nationalism? And who are they - the 'Threatening Others'?
49
I. Maududi and the idea of Nationalism

A. Conflict with the Traditionalists and the Modernists
B. Islam is Opposed to the ideas of Nation and Nationalism
II. Golwalkar and the idea of the 'Hindu Nation'

A. The 'Nation' defined in terms of Cultural, Racial and Territorial Unity and
Founded on a Series of Exclusions
1. The 'Hindu Nation'
2. Key ideas that emerge out of these ideas
a. The Nation as 'Divine Mother' (Bharat Mata)
b. The Nation as the 'Living God'
c. The Nation as 'Inherent Oneness'
d. The Nation in opposition to 'Threatening Others'
Conclusion
Chapter 4 - The Question of Secularism - How did Maududi and

Golwalkar interact with the idea of secularism and how was this
reflected in their ideas on society?
70
1. Maududi and Secularism
A. A Critique of Western, Secular Civilisation

B. Maududi' s Islamic Response
1. God as Creator, Lord and Ruler
2. The Sovereignty of God
3. The Status of Man
4. The idea of deen or the Islamic Holistic Approach to Life
II. Golwalkar and Secularism
A. A critique of Westem Secularism
B. Hindu Religion, Culture and History versus 'Secular Ideals'
1. Religion and Culture
2. Religion as Dharma
3. Chaturvidha Purushartha ~ The Complete Life-concept
4. Secularism as understood in the Indian context
5. 'Hindu Secular Tolerance' ~ Emotional Integration and Cultural Assimilation
6. The Holistic Approach of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
ii
Chapter 5- Religion and the State - What Relationship or Interaction

Between Religion and the State did Maududi and Golwalkar Envisage?
I.
89
Maududi - Religion and the State

A. Basic Principles for Maududi' s Political Theory of Islam (Islam and the State)
1. Islam, as Religion, is a Complete system of Life, Universal and Allembracing, therefore the Islamic State must be Universal and Allembracing
2. Power, Politics and Jihad
B. Foundation Principles for the Islamic State - Tawhid, Rasala and Khilafat
1. Tawhid (The Unity of God)
2. Rasala (Prophethood)
3. Khilafat (Caliphate or Representation)
C. The Nature and Functions of the Islamic State
D. The Role of Non-Muslims or Zimmis (Dhimmis)
II Golwalkar - Religion and the State

A. The Nation versus the State: Rashtra versus Raj
B. Hindu Rashtra as an Organic Whole
C. The Function of the Hindu State - As it was, so it should be
D. Wanted - A Unitary State
E. Politics and Political Power
F. The Ideal Hindu Nation/Society (Rashtra)
G. Non-Hindus/Minorities and the State
H. The RSS, Religion and Politics
Conclusion
Final Conclusion
116
Source References
127
Bibliography
130
Appendix: The 8angb Parivar
136
iii
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
Thesis/Project Title:
Candidates name:
D 40 I 0
KAQ FO~fZO=-
I declare that this thesis/project is the result of my own research, that it does not incorporate
\vithout acknowledgment any material submitted for a degree or diploma in any University and
that, it does not contain any materials previously published, written or produced by another
person except where due reference is made in the text.
'Blood Brothers - Swom Enemies'
ACKNO'VLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those who have had important
contributions to this thesis. To Steve Cochrane, who was instrumental in helping me to
see the value of a thesis that compares the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar. Professor
T.N. Madan (Honorary Professor of Sociology, Institute of Economic Growth, University
of Delhi) gave of his time and input into the initial stages of the formation of the idea for
the thesis. He helped me to see that this thesis could make a unique contribution, by
outlining the potential differences between the two and helped to provide the basis for
which I was able to develop my methodology. My supervisor at the University of South
Australia, Michael O'Donoghue, guided me through the detailed process of establishing
my thesis and kept me 'on the straight and narrow path' of maintaining my focus a!ld not
getting caught up in unnecessary though interesting tangents. Dr. John Azumah, lecturer
at the Union Biblical Seminary on Islamic Studies (Pune, India) gave added advice on
issues especially relating to Maududi and his ideas. I am grateful to Dr. Mark Radford for
taking the time to read the thesis, and for his insightful comments that helped me to
polish off loose ends. My parents Dr. Anthony and Robin Radford, who were my
constant companions on the journey of learning to write a thesis. There is no doubt
though that my greatest acknowledgment is to my family. Without the encourageluent
and support of my wife Wendy, and children, Caleb and Esther, this thesis would not
have been written.
ABSTRACT
In this thesis, 'Blood Brothers, Sworn Enemies' , I have sought to find keys to better
understand some of the complexities that make up the nations of Paldstan and India and
in particular the more radical or 'fundamentalist' religious movements that have become
so prominent over the last few decades. Early in the thesis I quote the statement' Ideas
have consequences' and elaborate that we must move away from simply focussing on
present national events that involve these religious movements as if they can be merely
understood by themselves or by their immediate social or political contexts. We must
consider the ideas that initiated the events, fermented them and guided those who seek to
lead them. In particular, I have studied the ideas of two of the most prominent thinkers
within these movements, Maulana Maududi, of the Muslim Jamaat-I-Islami and M.S.
Golwalkar, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Though both are now dead, their ideas
live on in the thinking and deeds of others. This thesis explores a comparison of the ideas
of these men and their radical/fundamentalist ideologies with a focus on the way they
viewed the relationship between religion and the state. Others have established that such
a comparison between significant individuals, who lived in the same historical timeframe,
and in this case the same geographical and political contexts, offers valuable insight into
the situations/nations in which they were directly involved.
In order to understand the topic for this thesis we must understand some related issues
that directly affect the ideas themselves, and indeed form the backbone to them. The
methodology that I have used has been one where I have considered some of the key
questions that Maududi and Golwalkar were seeking to answer. Their answers to these
questions provided the framework for the further development of their ideas relating to
religion and the state. By comparing their ideas we are able to see where they are coming
from and how they converge and diverge from each other. I seek to show that these two
men actually corne to similar conclusions though from very different specific worldviews, one Muslim, and the other Hindu. These key questions are centred around the
issues of identity. Who am I as a Muslim/Hindu? And Who are we as the Muslim/Hindu
community/nation and how do Vwe relate to others from different cormnunities?
Secularism as an ideology played an important part in the development of Maududi' sand
Golwalkar's thinking, or at least in their response to it, and this is also considered. The
final section on 'religion and the state' brings these questions, answers, and their ideas,
together and highlights once again their similarities and differences of view.
Three sets of statements fonn the concluding comments. The first, from Elaine Pagels, is
that ideas have not been enough for religious movements to succeed. They also require
organisation and power. And power is the ultimate direction in which the ideas of
Maududi and Golwalkar go. They lead to the use, the need for, or influence of, political
power reflected in the form of the state. Only when such absolute power is available,
overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly, to these religious movements can the ideas of
these men find their ultimate fruition. Neither have achieved this end, but the question
remains, what if they do?
This leads to the second statement, referred to in the introduction, that 'Ideas have
consequences'. Just as we must not simply consider 'circumstances' in isolation from the
ideas that began them, so we must not consider 'ideas' simply in relation to the present
consequences. They also have future possible ramifications. By understanding these ideas
we may hazard a future guess at what these ideas may look like as they are worked out
and adapted by others. The conceivable future certainly could see very strongly
religiously affiliated state governance that upholds the dominance and supremacy of one
prevailing majority religious community over the other minority religious communities.
The final statement considered is really a series of statements quoted from Samuel
Huntington's The Clash ofCivilizations. While not necessarily agreeing to all he says, it
is clear that many issues he raises are pertinent to Pakistan and India, both internally and
ultimately between them bilaterally. They also have great relevance to the ideas Maududi
and Golwalkar articulated. Of course the potential 'clash of civilisations', Muslim and
Hindu, is far more than a 'clash of ideas'. Yet civilisations are largely built on the basis
of ideas, of particular world-views. To understand what this clash is, and what potentially
could happen if certain people and movements spearhead these nations (at the same
time), a knowledge of these ideas is essential. Of course, ultimately, things also rest on
the ability of the new avatars of these ideas to convince a large majority of their fellow
religionists that their definition of religion and of 'self and 'other' identity is not only
correct but worth sacrificing everything to achieve.
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The title 'Blood Brothers, Sworn Enemies' is representative of the two individuals and
their religious communities who are the focus of this thesis. Abul 'Ala Maududi (19031979) and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906-1973) were men who lived in a unique time
in Indian (South Asian) history. Both born in the beginning of the twentieth century these
two men came to prominence as thinkers and outspoken communicators for the radical
movements within their respective religious communities, Maududi in respect of Indian
Muslim Fundamentalism and Golwalkar for Hindu Nationalism. The partition of India and
the upheaval it caused provided fertile ground for the ideas of these men to take root, the
consequences of which twenty-first century Pakistan and India are still feeling the effects.
'Blood Brothers' because they came from the same 'Indian stock' - their families, their
blood are rooted in South Asia. And as 'Sworn Enemies' because these men and the ideas
they represented stand at polar opposites to one another religiously speaking - the radical
Muslim and the radical Hindu facing one another, metaphorically, with the sword in one
hand and the trident in the other.
In my thesis I propose to make a comparative study between the ideas of Maududi and
Golwalkar particularly concerning the relationship between religion and the state. A
comparison of these ideas will be beneficial in providing a fuller understanding of these
men and the organisations they helped to develop, and will also give us added insight into
possible future developments within and between these nations.
Max Weber has been credited with the thought that 'ideas have consequences'. In the
midst of the religio-political situations (i.e. consequences) that Pakistan and India find
themselves today it is imperative that we pay attention not only to the present experience what can be seen, heard and felt- but also to the ideas that have greatly influenced them.
These present experiences include such events as the imposition of Muslim Shari 'ah law,
and the persecution of the Ahmadiya Muslim sect and the Christian communities in
Pakistan; the ongoing tensions over Kashmir; the destruction of the Babri Mosque by
Hindu extremists in Ayodhya, North India; the constant religious communal tensions
between Muslims and Hindus; persecution of Christians by certain Hindu groups; the rise
of the Hindu political Party (Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] in India; the push in certain
Introduction
quarters to have the Indian constitution changed to reflect Hindu Nationalist ideals; and the
influence that the organisations that Maududi and Golwalkar were intimately involved with
(Jama 'at-I-Islalni [JI] and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS]) have had and are
having on Pakistan and India.
Why Maududi and Golwalkar?
Men like Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnnah, the first Prime Ministers in India
and Pakistan, were very influential in the formation of India and Pakistan as independent
nation states following partition in 1947. Though at odds on the need to divide India, both
were adamant that these new nations were to be secular (i.e. have as little to do with
organised religion as possible) in nature. Nevertheless, neither could escape the realities
that faced them. Instead of a large majority Muslim population with a sizeable minority
community Jinnah's Pakistan became almost completely Muslim (97+0/0).
Maududi and Golwalkar both opposed the Partition of India for interestingly similar
though opposing reasons. Maududi saw united India as a place for the divinely appointed
and rightful Islamic Shari 'ah law to be implemented. Partition was nothing less than a
division of Allah's land. Golwalkar, following in the footsteps of the ideological father of
the Hindu nationalist movement 1, saw the geo-political area of India as one united
'Hindusthan', land of the Hindus, and envisioned a time when all peoples of India would
either recognise their inherent
'Hindu-ness' or be forced to either leave or be subjected to 'second-class citizenship'
(Madan, 1997:223).
While neither Maududi or Golwalkar nor the organisations they represented have come to
absolute power (control of the state) in either of the nations where they have been
strongest, their ideas have given birth and have seen the development of significant social,
cultural, religious and political movements that will not go away, despite considerable
opposition. They continue to affect the nations where they have predominantly existed and
1 V.D.Savarkar- author of the book 'Hindutva - What is a Hindu?' which defined the political, religious and
cultural outlook of the Hindu Nationalist movement, and who greatly influenced the founding of the RSS
under Dr. Hedgewar. Golwalkar must necessarily be linked together with Savarkar as Golwalkar carried
forward and further developed the ideas that Savarkar initially introduced. Therefore it will be important to
consider Savarkar and the way he links into together with Golwalkar. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was
Introduction
'Blood Brothers - SWOlTI Enemies'
have had both a direct and an indirect relationship and influence on those who have
represented political authority as well as the general masses. My focus is therefore on the
more radical approaches that those within the Muslim and Hindu communities have taken.
Why make a direct comparison between two individuals?
Alan Bullock has proven the tremendous benefit in comparing the lives (and the ideas) of
two highly influential men who lived in the same era, and whose influence went far beyond
themselves and their local contexts, namely Hitler and Stalin (1993 - Hitler and Stalin Parallel Lives). Maududi and Golwalkar likewise have lived in the same historical era (in
terms of time) and their ideas have been highly influentiae. But these men have other
similarities; they lived in the same geographical area and lived through the same historical
circumstances (i.e. British Rule in India and Partition). The ideas and thinking of both were
born out of similar circumstances but with markedly different worldviews. A comparative
study, particularly of the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar, will help us to understand better
the often conflicting challenges that we find in India and Pakistan - challenges which
include issues such as that of secularism, fundamentalism, 'majoritism,3, and the way
religion interfaces with the state.
Why and how are the themes developed within the thesis?
Maududi and Golwalkar were prophetic men of vision. They saw incisively into the
historical circumstances their religious communities and India were facing, identified the
maladies that caused them and then set about communicating a vision of the way things
ought to be. With the decline of British Rule it was time for the rebuilding and renewing of
Indian society - under Muslim supremacy according to Maududi and under Hindu
supremacy according to Golwalkar. This thesis is focussed towards identifying and
comparing what this Muslim and Hindu supremacy looked like, particularly as it relates to
the way Maududi and Golwalkar saw religion interacting with the state.
an organisational man; Golwalkar, his designated successor, was a charismatic ideologue who gave fresh
impetus to the RSS as a movement to rejuvenate Hindu society.
2The ideas of Maududi in particular were influential far beyond the shores and context of India.
3 A term often used in South Asia referring to undue influence of the majority community over minorities.
Introduction
The first chapter deals with the contexts in which Maududi and Golwalkar found
themselves. Ideas do not develop in isolation, they come from somewhere. The context for
Maududi and Golwalkar included such things as their history, colonial rule, calls for
Muslim and Hindu revitalisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the
widespread growth of religious fundamentalism, and of course their own personal
journeys. These form the background out of which their ideas emerged. As thinkers
Maududi and Golwalkar were men who looked at situations (especially within their own
Muslim and Hindu communities) and analysed the problems as they saw them. Inevitably
this raised questions. It was on the basis of the answers to these questions that these men
formulated their thinking on the role of religion and the state. These questions form the
themes that provide the framework for the rest of the thesis. My focus is on 'Religion and
the State', but in order to get there, and in order to properly understand their thinking, we
must work our way backwards, in other words to start at the beginning.
The second and third chapters deal with the questions of identity. Who is a Muslim? Who
is a Hindu? - as individuals and as a community/nation. In answering these questions
Maududi and Golwalkar were able to provide boundaries for clear identification - who was
a true Muslim and a true Hindu, and who was not. The converse was as important because
the solutions to Muslim and Hindu [re] ascendancy involved both a renewal of an
individual's Islamic and Hindu identity (allegiances) and therefore a renewal of their
respective communities, as well as a clear delineation as to who was in (and therefore had
power and authority) and who was out (those who fell into lesser categories). It also
identifies the enemies of Muslim and Hindu ascendancy, internal and external. Jaffrelot
refers to these as those 'Threatening Others' (1999 - Chapter One heading, p 11). These
issues go beyond simply revivalism, they ultimately determine the basis for the way
society, and therefore the state, should function. The identity of Muslims and Hindus as a
community leads to the broader issue of nation/nationalism, which is the direction the third
chapter takes. This chapter deals with questions such as: What is a 'nation'? and How
should a nation be defined?
The fourth chapter considers the way Maududi and GolwCllkar responded to the issue of
secularism. The idea of secularism was very much at the core of the ideals that saw India
carved up into the nation states of India and Pakistan. The idea of secularism is
fundamental to the way much of the modem world has developed particularly in relation to
4
Introduction
the function of nation states. Certainly this was true of the European nations that most
interfaced with South Asia. To understand how Maududi and Golwalkar viewed the
relationship between religion and society/the State, it is essential to deal with how they
interacted with secularism. This is true especially as it relates to the twin ideas of the
rejection of things religious and of the separation of religion within society, and the
compartmentalising or restricting of its influence to certain areas.
The fifth chapter centres specifically on 'Religion and the State'. With the questions of
identity - individual and national considered, with a clearer understanding of how Maududi
and Golwalkar saw secularism and their response to it in the light of their Muslim and
Hindu communities, we are now in a position to give our attention to Maududi's and
Golwalkar's ideas relating to how they saw the relationship behveen religion and the state.
The previous chapters provide the necessary foundation for the issues discussed in this
chapter. This chapter will also consider the specific issue of how religious minorities are
viewed and the role the organisations these men founded and developed in the functioning
of the State.
The conclusion highlights the key issues brought out by the comparison of the ideas of
Maududi and Golwalkar. How do their ideas compare? Where do they converge? Where
do they diverge? What were the elements that formed the basis for these ideas? It raises
some important issues for the future, given that the ideas of these men may well be taken
up by others who will make them their own in the twenty-first century.
Literature Review
The literature available on Maududi and Golwalkar can be divided into three sections.
Literature written about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Hindu nationalism as part
of a modem phenomenon, literature written about these men, their ideas and the
organisations they have closely associated with, and thirdly, the works that Maududi and
Golwalkar wrote themselves. In the first category the most exhaustive work has been the
five volume Fundamentalism Project edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby. The
Fundamentalism Project is a collection of essays written by numerous individuals from a
multi-disciplinary perspective seeking to analyse and understand what is considered by
5
Introduction
many to be the modem phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. Many of the authors

focus their attention on Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Hindu revivalism and
nationalism in India with obvious references to Maududi and the lama 'at-I-Islami and
Golwalkar and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in India. Others such as Peter van der
Veer, Religious Nationalism - Hindus and Muslims in India and T.N. Madan, Modern
Myths, Locked Minds, consider the rise and influence of fundamentalism in South Asia
specifically. T.B. Hansen and David Ludden focus on the efforts of Hindu Nationalists in
India, while Bruce E. Lawrence, Defenders of God and Youssef M. Choueiri, Islamic
Fundamentalism look at the role, among others, that Maududi and the lamaat had in
worldwide Islamic fundamentalism.
In the second category Sayyed Vali Reza Nasr's two books Maududi and the Making of
Islamic Revivalism and The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution stand out as the most
comprehensive works specifically focused on the life of Maududi and the lama 'at-I-Islami
as an organisation. Ishtiaq Ahmed in his book The Concept of an Islamic State gives
prominence to Maududi as one of the key orchestrators and promoters of the idea and
content of the Islamic State as a concept. With the recently rapid rise and popularity of
Hindu nationalism there has been a flood of books on Golwalkar and the RSS, in particular
Dr. R. Goyal's Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Christophe Jaffrelot's The Hindu
Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925-1990's, The Brotherhood in Saffron - The
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism by Walter K Anderson and Shridhar
D Damle and Political Ideas of MS. Golwalkar by Ritu Kohli. Koenraad Elst has just
produced a two-volume investigation into the charge of fascism against Golwalkar and the
RSS in The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of ((Hindu Fascism" as well as an extrapolation
of the ideological development of Hindu Revivalism in Decolonizing the Hindu Mind.
Of the two men Maududi was the most prolific writer penning a multitude of works (well
over a hundred) mostly published as pamphlets. Of these, the ones most pertinent to this
thesis are Islamic Law and Constitution, The First Principles of the Islamic State, The
Islamic Way ofLife, West Versus Islam, Towards Understanding Islam, Let us Be Muslims,
Towards Understanding Islam, Human Rights in Islam and Four Basic Quranic Terms.
They cover Maududi's detailed treatise and rationale for, and description of, the Islamic
State and his passionate attempts to convince Muslims to wholeheartedly devote
themselves to the Islamic cause and way of life.
6
Introduction
Golwalkar was a great travelling man visiting and speaking all over India. The works best
associated with his ideas and thinking have been We or our Nationhood Defined, Bunch of
Thoughts and Spotlights. The former was his first and most controversial work and the
latter were compilations of his speeches and writings as he later developed them. Other
literature that he wrote can be found in Integral Approach that was co-authored with
Deendayal Upadhyaya and D.B. Thengadi, and in an number of articles/speeches that he
wrote/gave which are available from the RSS website. V.D. Savarkar's book Hindutva -
Who is a Hindu? was a foundational work for the Hindu Nationalist movement. Golwalkar
and any other thinker within this movement will inevitably refer to this book as they
espoused their own thinking and to which, therefore, I will also give some attention.
What has not been written or considered before has been a direct comparison of the ideas
of Maududi and Golwalkar. They have been considered as individuals in their own right or
within
the
context
of their
own
movements,
or
as
part
of a
worldwide
fundamentalism/religious nationalism paradigm but not side-by-side. Both sought to give

definition and vision for their religious communities as the authority bearers for society
and as I hope to show, both come to quite similar conclusions but from very different
presuppositions. I believe this different perspective will be a valuable contribution to what
has already been written.
One final book is important to mention, and that is The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington. While not mentioning Maududi and
Golwalkar by name this book has significant bearing on my thesis. Huntington seeks to
formulate a new paradigm for understanding the changing world in the aftermath of the
demise of the former Soviet Union and the ending of the 'Cold War'. In this new scenario
Huntington believes that the dominant shift in global activity will be the focus on alliances
based on civilisations and not on the basis of a particular political ideology or other uniting
factors. At the same time the centre for global conflicts on both a micro and macro level
will be the clash between competing civilisations. His thesis, especially as it relates to the
ascendant and often aggressive Muslim civilisation [represented by Pakistan and Maududi]
in conflict with the Hindu civilisation [represented by India and Golwalkar] has remarkable
parallels with some of the issues that this thesis raises and to which I will draw some
attention in the final conclusion.
7
Introduction
Methodology
This thesis begins by considering the context that surrounded Maududi and Golwalkar and
their ideas - personally, historically and religiously. Each of the chapters following will
look at the ideas of these men focused towards understanding what they saw as the
relationship of religion and the state. I have seen it as a progressive build-up. In order to
understand the topic for the thesis we must understand some related issues that form the
building blocks to it. I have sought to do this by considering some of the key questions that
Maududi and Golwalkar were seeking to answer. Their answers to these questions
provided the framework for the further development of their ideas relating to religion and
the state.
In each chapter I will look at the question at hand and then in tum review the way Maududi
and Golwalkar sought to answer them. At the end of each chapter these ideas will be
summarised with a view to looking at the way they come together and where they diverge.
My final conclusion will try to bring an overall look at their ideas on the thesis topic and
the way they have compared and contrasted with one another, what has happened to their
ideas and consider where these ideas might lead.
Chapter 1
'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'
CHAPTER ONE:
THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR
As stated in the introduction it is vital to understand the personal/historicaVpolitical and

religious contexts that surrounded Maududi and Golwalkar if we are to properly
understand their ideas. This chapter seeks to provide the background for the ideas
discussed in the subsequent chapters.
I. PERSONAL CONTEXT
A. Maulana (Mawlana) Sayyid Abu-'. A'ia Maududi (Mawdudi) 1903-1979 Personal History and Involvement with the Jama'at-I-Islami
In his comments on Islamic revivalism world-wide, Nasr makes the point, that to
properly understand the development of this movement it is imperative that we
understand the life histories and intellectual contributions of particular individuals individuals who have had a significant impact on the movement (Nasr, 1996:3).
One of those significant individuals was Maulana Sayyid Abu-l A'Ia Maududi 1
(hereafter referred to as Maududi). There seems to be little doubt that Maududi had
made one of the most important contributions to Islamic revivalism both in his own
nation of Pakistan as well as in the movement worldwide. Nasr describes this man
and his role in Islamic revivalism as follows:
...Mawlana Sayyid Abu-'l AlIa Mawdudi ... was one of the first Islamic thinkers to develop
a systematic political reading of Islam and a plan for social action to realize his vision. His
creation of a coherent Islamic ideology, articulated in terms of the elaborate organization of
an Islamic State, constitutes the essential breakthrough that led to the rise of contemporary
revivalism... Mawdudi is without doubt the most influential of contemporary Islamic
revivalistic thinkers. His views have influenced revivalism from Morocco to Malaysia,
leaving their mark on thinke::s such as Sayyid Qutb and on events such as the Iranian
revolution of 1978-1979, and have influenced the spread of Islamic revivalism in Central
Asia, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Mawdudi's contribution to the development 'of
Islamic revivalism and its aims, ideals, and language is so significant that it cannot be
satisfactorily understood without consideration of his life and thought (Nasr, 1996:4
footnote #12)2
Born on September 25 th , 1903,
In
Aurangabad, in what is now the state of
Maharashtra, he was the youngest son of Sayyid Ahmad Hasan. Maududi was
1
For convenience sake I have chosen this transliteration of Maududi's name unless taken from a direct quote.
Chapter 1
descended from one of the most prominent branches of the Chisti Sufi Order. This
Sufi order has had the most significant impact in terms of the spread of Islam in
Northern India, and remains today the best known of the Sufi orders. The Chisti
pilgrimage site in Ajrner, Rajasthan, is visited today by thousands of people,
Muslim and Hindu alike. Later in life Maududi was to refer to this familial heritage
as a basis for his claim to authority in the spreading of his ideas and thinking (Nasr,
1996: 9). The significance of his mother's family lay in their intimate involvement
with the Moghul rulers whom they served as military generals.
Maududi's early education was an Islamic one. Maududi' s father wanted him to
follow a religious vocation, but after his father's death in 1918, Maududi, still a
teenager, turned towards journalism. It was not long before Maududi and his
brother moved to Delhi where he soon became engrossed in politics and the Indian
Independence movement. It was during this period that Maududi pursued his
interest in English modernist thought4 . While remaining sceptical of the premises
underlying much of this writing he nevertheless attempted to understand it and
resolve
the
philosophical
differences
between
tradition
and
modernity.
Significantly, Nasr points out, 'Mawdudi became particularly interested in

understanding the theoretical basis and practical application of modem scientific
thought in the context of an Islamic worldview'. (Nasr, 1996:15)5
A number of repercussions from the failure of the Khilafat movement (a movement

initiated in India to support the cause for maintaining the Muslim Ottoman caliphate, a
symbol of Islamic political and spiritual unity, after the First World War, considered later
in this chapter), led Maududi to believe that he needed to take some action. Some of these
2 See also Esposito in Banuazizi, 1987:341-342 and Veer, 1998: 63-64. Madan mentions an Islamic scholar
in Chicago, Fazlur Rahman, who disputes this claim about Maududi and is in fact antagonistic towards him
(see also Madan, 1997: 143).
3 Nasr makes the point that those people involved in revivalist thinking during this time were also
those who had come from important Moghul related families whose fortunes were reversed once the
British had come to power (1996: 11 see footnote #24 - This certainly was also true of the Hindu
nationalist thinker V.D.Savarkar although in his case it was his family's position in relation to a
Hindu Raja, Veer, 1988:2.)
4 Some of Maududi's readings on modernity included Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Liebnitz, Kant, Nietzsche,
Darwin, Lenin, Marx, Bernard Shaw.
5 Maududi' s " ... concern for incorporating mOdelTI scientific ideas in the C01pUS of Islamic thought
rather than vague attempts at cultural revival of earlier days - which may be more attributed to the
conservative elements within Islam associated in India with the Ulama (those Muslim religious
leaders who are educated in Islamic law and capable of issuing opinion on religious matters). Nasr,
1996:15
10
Chapter 1
repercussions included the subsequent violent communal tensions between the Hindu and
Muslim communities following the demise of the Khilafat movement; the assassination of
Swami Shradhanand
leader of the shuddhi movement (an organised campaign to
convince predominantly nominal Muslims who abided by Hindu norms and low caste
converts to Islam to return to Hinduism - its stress on conversion was a source of great
antagonism to Muslims); the increasingly aggressive stand of radical Hindu groups such as
the Hindu Mahasabha and especially the Arya Samaj, on issues such as shuddhi; the
apparent failure of Muslim intellectuals to defend their faith and community adequately;
and the growing sense of despondency among Indian Muslims. 6 Professor Madan, in a
personal conversation regarding Maududi (20/11/00, New Delhi), felt that more than any
other issue the events surrounding the Khilafat movement provided the defining moments
for Maududi as far as his sense of divine call and efforts towards the promotion of an
Islamic State. He became convinced that issues relating to Westemisation, secularism, and
the majority Hindu dominance made it impossible for Muslims to live under Hindu rule or
secular governance. He believed that Muslims needed to look towards the formation of an
Islamic State to protect their interests. Action for Maududi meant taking up the pen - the
journalist/scholar within him came to the fore beginning with his apologetic Islam Ka
qanun-I-jang (Islam's Law ofWar)7. Nasr comments:
From this point, Maududi's knowledge of Islamic history, law, theology, philosophy, and
mysticism, and his reading of the Indian Muslims' political experiences in the 20th century [and his
reading in more modem subj ects] led him to a revivalist position and the assumption of the authority
needed to articulate it. (1996:26).
Over the next few years Maududi furthered his journalistic vocation editing a number of
newspapers while at the same time pursuing his Arabic and religious studies (dars
inizami). He eventually received his ijazahs (certificate to teach religious science)
becoming a Deobandi 8 'alim (singular of lulama). Maududi however, was not keen on
publicising his Deobandi training or his ties with the Ulama. Nasr suggests that this may
have been because he did not want to alienate the western educated classes (1996: 18).
Madan points out that Maududi' s main issue with the Deobandi ulama was that they
There were other pressing issues also. Some of these included the missionary activity of the Ahmadi sect;
the fall of Sharif Hussein of Mecca to the Wahabi movement in Saudi of' Abdul ~Aziz ibn Saud in 1924; and
the resulting upheaval in Mecca and Medina for which Hyderabad, as a declining Muslim stronghold in
India, was also closely tied (Minault, 1999:23-31).
7 A rational exposition of the Islamic doctrine ofjihad (holy war) which had come under attack as an
example of Islam's violent nature.
8 Deoband was the location of one of the main Islamic institutions in India - for a brief discussion on the two
main Muslim Institutions at Aligarh and Deoband, and their differences see Madan, 1997: 133-138; also Gail
Minault, 1999 )
11
Chapter 1
supported the movement for independence from the British through the vehicle of the
Indian National Congress (1997:139). No doubt, by not acting as an 'alim Maududi kept
himself from being 'tagged' as an outdated conservative religious leader. But it also had
another more personal outcome for himself. Maududi wanted to bridge the gap between
traditional and modem education among Muslims believing that it was important to get the
best from both streams. But this was also a double-edged sword. By refusing to act as an
'aUm Maududi also withheld his acceptance of the ijma' (consensus) of the Ulama who
had preceded him (Nasr, 1996:18) thereby leaving room for him to have the freedom to
interpret the Islamic scriptures and traditions in ways that he felt were better suited for
modem times. 9
I do not have the prerogative to belong to the class of the Ulema. I am a man of the middle cadre,
who has imbibed something of both systems of education, the new and the old; and has gathered my
knowledge by traversing both paths. By virtue of my inner light, I conclude that neither the old
school not the new is totally in the right. (Nasr, 1996: 19)
It was while Maududi was in Hyderabad that he experienced a renewal of his faith. In the
midst of his writing and activism he found himself struggling with his faith. But as a result
of his own reading of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (The Traditions) and his education at the
Fatipuri mosque seminary, his personal conversion to Islam took place. Nasr comments, as
if to underscore the context of Maududi's journey of faith, that this reconversion was
divorced from the traditional orthodoxy and from the institutions of the ulama and the sufis
which, for Maududi, became rituals and impediments toward realising his objectives
(1996:29, see also quote in footnote #13).
Maududi's developing revivalist solutions and the effects of his reconversion to Islam only
began to find expression in political tenns in 1937, after a visit to Delhi, where he
witnessed at first hand Hindu political ascendancy and the secularisation that seemed to
have taken place among Muslims. This led Maududi to take a stance that became even
more anti-Congress, anti-nationalist and anti-traditional Muslim leadership (such as the
Jam 'iat-I- 'Ulama-I Hind - his fanner employers).
Maududi did have many things in conunon with the Deobandi. He shared many of their concerns
especially the intrusion of colonial culture into the lives of Muslims. Like the Deobandis, Maududi sought to
emulate "the practice of an authentic text or an idealized historical period", to exalt religious law and teach it
at a popular level, to disparage popular religious rites and customs such as the celebrations of Sufi festivals,
and generally to create a normative order in which Muslims could live by the teachings of their faith
independent of the ruling order. '(Nasr, 1996: 18)
12
Chapter 1
In 1937 Maududi moved from Hyderabad to eastern Punjab where he took up a position as
overseer of a project begun by the poet Muhammad Iqbal and under the patronage of
Niyaz'Ali. This project came to be called Daru'l Islam as Maududi's intention was that
India would once again come under the 'House of Islam' with Pathankot as its revivalist
centre. This was Maududi' s opportunity to train a cadre of dedicated men who would
eventually work in the political arena without losing their strong religious loyalties, or, as
Nasr puts it, 'to provide the Muslim community of India with its leaders and to serve as the
foundation for a genuine religious movement of political deliverance (1996:39).' His
outspoken views eventually led to both a split with the Muslim League as well as with
Daru 'I Islam's patron, who had envisioned more of an educational institution than a 'hot-
bed' for fermenting religious and political revolution. Maududi moved Daru'l Islam to
Lahore, in the process declaring 'that separation of religion from politics had no place in
Islam'(Nasr, 1996:39).
Now that Maududi had his institution and 'nerve centre' for training and spreading his
Islamic revivalism, the next step was to form the organisational apparatus that would
spearhead this tlrrust. In August 1941, Maududi established the Jama 'at-I Is/ami (JI literally, 'the Islamic Association') in Lahore. Although the JI started off with more sociocultural and religious aspirations to renew Islam from within ('there could be no Islamic
state without an Islamic revolution' - Madan, 1997: 139) the turbulent events of Partition
and the resulting formation of a separate nation for the Muslims of India spurred Maududi
on to pursue more direct political involvement. This was inevitable given Maududi's
passion to include all of life under the mantle of Islam - indeed the formation of an Islamic
State was an ideal goal. During this time Maududi also took steps to see that his writings
were translated into Arabic for circulation throughout the Muslim World.
Though initially opposed to the idea of partition (Madan, 1997:139-140) Maududi soon
overcame his initial qualms, migrated to Pakistan, and actively promoted the establishment
of an Islamic State and constitution for this new Muslim nation. 'Indeed', Madan quotes
Maududi, 'if a secular and Godless, instead of Islamic, constitution was to be introduced
and if the Criminal Procedure Code had to be enforced instead of the Islamic Shari' a what
was the sense in all this struggle for a separate Muslim homeland?' He [Maududi]
pronounced Western secular democracy to be the very antithesis of Islam' (1997: 140, see
also p139).
13
Chapter 1
In the years since Partition, Maududi and the 11 have had a chequered history of religious
and political involvement in the affairs of Pakistan (from the forming of the constitutions
of Pakistan, to seeking political status, to supporting the war with East Pakistan, now
Bangladesh, to spearheading the attack on the Ahmadiya sect, to the implementation of
Muslim Shariah law). They were at times in favour, and at times out of favour, with the
ruling authorities, but they were always at the forefront of espousing the cause of Islam.
Since Maududi's death in 1979, the 11 have continued this involvement in Pakistan to the
present time.
Although Maududi may not have been a leader close to the heart of the people, and
although the 11 may have never done well as far as the popular vote was concerned,
Maududi's influence and the activity of the 11 have been of such a level that the ruling
establishment, and other opposition political parties and religious groups have had to
redefine their agendas and include 'Islamic ideals' in their public presentations (regardless
of their own personal views). Indeed they have been instrumental in pushing Pakistan
closer and closer to the realisation of a 'truly' Islamic state - the ultimate goal for all of
Maududi's thinking.
B. Madhav Sadashiv (M.S.) Golwalkar (1906-1973) - Personal History and

involvement with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak 8angh (R88)
Golwalkar was born on the 19th February 1906, into a Karhada Brahmin family, at Ramtek,
near Nagpur, Maharashtra. Guided by his schoolteacher father, Golwalkar pursued an
education focused on the sciences. Interestingly, during his early childhood and
adolescence Golwalkar appeared to show little interest in Hindu nationalism or politics.
However, Golwalkar developed a keen interest in the study of spiritual issues. While in his
teens, and under the oversight of the Superintendent of Schools in Nagpur, Golwalkar
began to read extensively the Vedas and other Hindu religious writings. Although he
considered devoting his life to these Golwalkar could not bring himself to oppose his
father's wishes for the direction of his future. Nevertheless, Golwalkar retained an ascetic
bent into his adult life. Some of his correspondence gives us an indication of this. Writing
to two different friends Golwalkar comments:
14
Chapter 1
At this juncture I want to reiterate that I do not have even the least intention to tune my life to the
mundane material comforts of life. I have the earnest desire to tune the strings of my life in such a
manner that I attain the state of self-negation to the purest extent. In this endeavour one has to
endure the inevitable stresses and strains. During this effort it won't be a matter of dissent or
discomfort. If one's life gets disoriented with the normal worldliness one has always to see that his
state of consciousness remains tuned with the divine music of the spiritual plane of life.
.. .the spiritual path is slippery as well as embedded with thorns; if I succeed, I will reach the
pinnacle. But if I slip, I will be shattered to pieces by falling into the deep abyss. And there is the
alternative to this sure but dangerous path. Some triumphant Shukdeva defeats Rambha and attains
Godhood whereas Vishvamitra traversing the same path, gets defeated at the hands of Menaka and
deviates. Incidentally, the phenomena of the world cannot be tied to a set of rules. But to say that
because one is disheartened, his decision to adopt the worldly life is justified, is nothing but
cowardice. For the eternal bliss one has to get ready to face the adversities and miseries inevitably
and be determined to triumph over them. There is no other way less risky than this. (Kohli, 1993:23)
Golwalkar met Dr. Hedgewar (the founder of the RSS) in 1929, during one of the latter's
visits to Benares Hindu University (BHU) where he was teaching. But it was not unti11931,
through one of his students, that Golwalkar ultimately joined the RSS. He continued to
teach until 1933 when he resigned his position at BHU and returned to Nagpur. At
Hedgewar's invitation Golwalkar began to work full-time at the Nagpur Headquarters of
the RSS while continuing his studies in law. After completing his studies in 1935,
Golwalkar managed to combine practising law with his responsibilities with the RSS.
Eventually he was also asked to manage the RSS Officer's Training Camp (which he
continued to do until 1939) based in Nagpur. This was an important position and an
indication of Golwalkar' s growing standing in the eyes of Hedgewar, as this camp was the
principal training programme for the RSS leadership.
In 1937, without informing either his parents or Hedgewar, Golwalkar left for the
Saragachi Ashram of Ramakrishna Math in the Himalayas, to be a sannyasi. A few months
later he moved on to the Ramakrislma Mission in Bengal to become a disciple of Swami
Akhandand (himself a disciple of Swami Vivekananda). In time he was initiated with
'Mantra Deeksha' by the Swami and gave himself to the life of a sadhu (Hindu holy man)
under the former's guidance.
In was in the midst of the dilemma of whether to pursue wholeheartedly the 'this-worldly'
activity of RSS work or the 'other-worldly' spiritual pursuits he had so desired since
childhood that Golwalkar ultimately- opted for the latter by, as it were, 'fleeing to it in the
middle of the night'. However, this pursuit of an isolated ascetic life in Bengal was brought
to a sudden halt with the death of the Swami barely a few months after Golwalkar had
joined the Ashram. During this traumatic experience Golwalkar returned to Nagpur where
15
Chapter 1
Hedgewar persuaded him not to return to isolated asceticism but rather to direct his life and
energy once again for the RSS cause.
Not long after this, in 1938, Golwalkar prepared the first systematic statement of the RSS
ideology entitled We or Our Nationhood Defined lO This remains until today the definitive
work on RSS thinking. Written in a very aggressive tone, this book is now very difficult to
locate. A more temperate collection of Golwalkar' s works was published entitled Bunch of
Thoughts, which is still widely available. In 1940, on the eve of his death, Dr. Hedgewar
passed on the mantle of leadership of the RSS to Golwalkar.
Golwalkar gave himself completely to the growth and development of the RSS nationwide. He made a practice of touring the entire country twice every year - something he
continued to do for all the 33 years he was the sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader of the
RSS). Hedgewar had founded the RSS with a desire to see it remain a primarily 'cultural'
organisation that was to keep a distance from political ac6vities. Golwalkar continued that
'policy' for some time although as the years went by it came to be increasingly brought
into question how strictly this distance remained in practice. Following the assassination of
Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, Golwalkar, as leader of the RSS, was arrested and a ban placed
on the organisation by the government. After his release a year later, there appeared to be a
marked increase in the RSS's involvement in both national and political arenas, despite the
fact that officially, and as part of the agreement reached between the government and
Golwalkar on his release, and the lifting of the ban on the RSS, no RSS worker was to have
direct involvement in politics. 'Despite Golwalkar's disclaimers', Anderson and Damle
claim, 'the RSS was a different organisation. Its leaders were now prepared for it to take on
a more activist orientation" (1987:55). At this time there was much discussion within the
Congress Party as to whether RSS members should be able to join as members. Indeed the
records show that there was some direct correspondence between the Congre<ss Home
Minister Patel and various RSS leaders about this (Ibid, 1987:52). Ultimately, Congress
rejected any direct relationship making allowances for RSS members to join only if they
resigned their membership with the RSS. The upshot of these events was that the RSS
became far more committed to being involved in politics than Golwalkar had originally
planned. A further and equally significant outcome was the decision to set up affiliated
10 Later Golwalkar was to acknowledge that this was largely an abridgement of an essay on nationalism
entitled 'Rashtra Mirnansa' by Baharao Savarkar - V.D. Savarkar's brother - Kohli, 1993:3; Andersen and
Darnle, 1987:43.
16
Chapter 1
organisations around the RSS to become actively involved in all kinds of aspects of Indian
society (Ibid, 1987:55-56 11 ; Jaffrelot, 1999: 187-89).
Golwalkar remained an influential man in Indian national affairs. He actively involved the
RSS in issues such as the war with Pakistan, and the conflict with China, and maintained a
close association with Lal Bahadur Shastri, who became Prime Minister after lawaharlal
Nehru. Golwalkar died in 1973, after suffering illness for several years. Golwalkar had
achieved much. When he took over the RSS there were about 50 shakhas (the small group
meetings where RSS members regularly gather) and 100,000 swayamsevaks (RSS
members). At the time of his death there were over 10,000 shakhas with a total
membership of about one million. Furthermore the RSS had been instrumental in
establishing nearly 50 'front' organisations involved in all aspects of Indian society political, social, religious, education, labour, women etc. The RSS had also begun to move
out internationally where people could become involved in the RSS movement through
their branch organisations such as the Bharatiya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (Goyal, 2000:96-97).
Today the influence of the RSS has penetrated into the highest echelons of power in the
nation where its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is the dominant
political party in the ruling coalition, and whose former members, hold the key positions in
Government (Atal Behan Vajpayee, Prime Minister, A.K. Advani - Home Minister,
Muruli Manohar Joshi - Human Resource Development, to name but a few).
II.
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS
A. British Colonial Rule
The most significant historical situation was the rise, influence and fall of colonialism
around the world and in particular British colonialism. The British had risen to enonnous
political and economic power ultimately controlling significant areas including parts of
Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, their peoples, and the economic wealth that
resided within them. Some of these colonies were fairly homogeneous in nature, others
11
For an extensive treatment of these RSS affiliates referred to as the 'Sangh Parivar' see chapter fOUf of
17
Chapter 1
such as that of India (pre-Partition - including what is now Pakistan, India and Bangladesh)
were a much more complicated conglomerate of large numbers of cultures, languages,
peoples, kingdoms and religious sects.
Prior to British rule 12 India had been largely, but not completely, governed by succeeding
Muslim dynasties. From the 12th century to the late 18 th century various Muslim rulers
managed to hold power to be the major political authority on the Indian subcontinent. The
British supplanted and defeated Muslim rule (the last Mughal emperor lasting until 1798),
eventually absorbing the remaining minor kingdoms that had managed to keep some
degree of independence from Muslim governance. Gaining power was one thing.
Maintaining that control over such a diverse place as India was another. Through a
complicated system of 'divide and rule' the British managed to unite India politically while
seeking to placate the various competing forces that they had brought under their sway.
One of the significant steps taken by the British in this regard was the implementation of a
system of separate representation for Muslims in legislatures. Effectively this meant that
Muslims could stand for legislative office, and be elected by Muslim electorates alone l3 .
This encouraged a growing polarisation between the Hindu and Muslim communities. In
this light Rao comments, that, as a result of these separate electorates, rivalries intensified
"between Hindus and Muslims, and created disruption; barriers were created where none
existed previously, and the Muslim community was further isolated. The whole fabric of
political and social life became vitiated and religion took on political overtones" (Rao, in
Shupe and Hadden, 1988: 181).
A further step taken by the British was the undertaking of a census at the end of the 19 th
century (see Frykenberg, 1993 :239). Ostensibly for the better running of the administration
of British India it ultimately was seen as an opportunity by various sections of the Muslim
and Hindu communities to enhance their power base with the British. The more numbers
one had the more one could bargain for special privileges etc. Muslim leaders sought to
make sure that fringe Muslims (those mainly converted from Hindu backgrounds but who
still maintained strong cultural links with their Hindu roots) were clearly in the Muslim
fold, while Hindu leaders made concerted efforts to see that all Hindu sects, regardless of
Anderson and Damle, 1987.

12The British ruled significant parts of India from the mid_18 th century.
13 Before 1909 Muslims found it difficult to be elected to legislative councils in provinces in which they were
not in a majority.
18
Chapter 1
their diversity of belief and practice, considered themselves, in the eyes of the law, to be
Hindus.
India remained the jewel in the British 'imperial crown' through to the begilUling of the
20 th century. However the world changed dramatically following the First World War (and
certainly after the Second World War). Colonial rule, of whatever sort - British, French,
German, Turkish - was heading for decline and the resulting call for the independence of
nations held under their sway, led to the sudden emergence of independent nation states
from Africa to Asia. After the First World War and under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi, Indian nationalists increased their efforts to push the British towards swaraj or
Home Rule for the Indian sub-continent. Mahatma Gandhi realised that for this to take
place it was essential that Muslims and Hindus find bridges to cross the increasing divide
between the two communities. The Khilafat movement offered such an opportunity to
Gandhi. Although it was primarily a Muslim issue Gandhi saw it as an opportunity for
Hindus to support a Muslim community concern and so forge greater levels of unity for the
cause against British colonial rule.
B. The Khilafat Movement
Essentially the goal of the Khilafat movement was to pressure the British government to
keep intact the Islamic caliphate based in Turkey - the Sultan wielded both kingly
(political) and religious (spiritual) authority for the Muslim world. The Ottoman Turks had
allied themselves with the Germans during the First World War and so lost out both in
terms of their religious (for Muslims) and secular (as representing a strong Muslim
political power) authority in the world. Both the Allied powers and Arab separatists in the
Middle East were keen on ending the political and spiritual 'domination' that the Turks had
enjoyed for centuries and were preparing to carve up the Turkish Empire as war
reparations and effectively strip the Ottoman caliphate of any real power or position. The
Muslim community in India sought to mobilise support from within India to prevent this
happening. Gail Minault, in her book, The Khilafat Movement (1999), discussed the fact
that the Khilafat movement did manage to foster some degree of support from non-Muslim
groups, such as the Indian Congress Party and Mahatma Gandhi in particular, but this was
more because of anti British sentiment than anything else. Its failure (it was the Turkish
leader Attaturk who abolished the Caliphate in 1924) eventually led to the polarisation of
19
'Blood Brothers ~Sworn Enemies'
Chapter 1
radical elements in both religious communities with an increasing marginalised moderate

middle as far as the Muslim community was concemed. 14
Maududi had become very involved with the Indian independence movement based
primarily on anti-British sentiment rather than a sense of communal or religious (i.e. antiHindu) feeling. But after the collapse of the Khilafat movement in 1924 following the
abolition of the caliphate in favour of a secular national state in Turkey, Maududi became
antagonistic towards the idea of nationalism and Westemisation. He concluded that the
demise of the caliphate was a result of scheming of westemised Turkish nationalists from
one side and the betrayal of Islam by Arab nationalists on the other (who, in collusion with
the Europeans, sought independence from the authority of the Turkish Ottoman caliphate).
Nasr states that Maududi's writings of that time clearly show that he had become
'convinced that nationalism would never protect the interests of Islam because of its
secular nature' (1996:20).
But the fall-out of the failure of the Khilafat movement was far greater. Mahatma Gandhi
had mobilized the Congress Party, including large numbers of its non-Muslim followers
(mostly Hindus) to support the Muslim community in India in the Khilafat cause. In its
aftermath Maududi took an increasingly opposing stance towards the Indian National
Congress and Indian nationalism. He viewed the Indian nationalist movement and the
Indian National Congress as something, which increasingly had developed a Hindu identity
and did not represent the Muslim community. Maududi felt that democracy would only
work for Muslims where Indian Muslims were a majority otherwise they would remain
dependent, to their detriment, on the whims of an antagonistic and far larger Hindu
majority. He began to look beyond the Indian National Congress and other representatives
of the Muslim community, such as the Muslim League, to the revival of Islam and its
institutions in developing a 'political strategy for safeguarding Muslim interests' (Nasr,
1996:20).
While Maududi became deeply involved in the above-mentioned 'nationalistic events'
Golwalkar was busily furthering his education. In 1926 Golwalkar went on to study his
14 An important aspect of what the Khilafat movement did achieve was a greater sense of 'communal
consciousness'. In Minault's words, 'The national alliance disintegrated, but Muslim community selfconsciousness, with or without the Khilafat to symbolize it, had become a factor in Indian politics. All future
attempts to cement an Indian national alliance had to take that feeling of Muslim consciousness into
account ... ' (1999:212). Muslims began to see themselves as having a distinct and viable identity.
20
Chapter 1
,,".""
.'
Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in Benares Hindu University (BHU),
Varanasi. In so doing Golwalkar came under the influence of the founder of the BHU,
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was a recognised Hindu nationalist leader in India
and one who encouraged Golwalkar to work for the Hindu nationalist cause. Following the
completion of his Master of Science degree Golwalkar was asked to join the teaching staff
of BHU as a professor of Zoology. It was during this time that the honorific title 'Guruji',
was bestowed on Golwalkar by his students. This was no doubt a result of the combination
of his 'holy man' looks and teacher status as well as his spiritualistic inclinations.
Although Golwalkar himself was yet to become heavily involved in the Hindu nationalist
movement in India another man, who was to have a great impact on the life and thinking of
both Golwalkar and Dr. Hedgewar, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
[RSS], was making his own significant contribution. That man was Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar (1883-1966).
c. Vinayak Damodar (V.D.) Savarkar -1883-1966

So important is Savarkar to this thesis and to the Hindu Nationalist movement as a whole
in India that a brief introduction is necessary. In 1923 Savarkar published a book entitled,
Hindutva
Who is a Hindu? This little book became, in many ways, the defining
work/thinking regarding Hindu Nationalism in India. Savarkar coined the term Hindutva
that also became the catch-cry for the Hindu nationalist movement in India, in all its varied
forms. Savarkar had an important influence on Dr. Hedgewar l5 who not long afterwards
founded the RSS (1925), and on Golwalkar, who was later to write his own manifesto (We
or our Nationhood Defined - 1939).
The comments on Savarkar on the inside jacket of one of the most recognised biographies
describes him thus:
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, reverentially known as Swatantryaveer (freedom fighter) was one of
the greatest patriots and revolutionaries in modem India. His determined struggle against the British
rulers and his sacrifice in the wake of this struggle is a glorious chapter in the history of India.
Besides, Savarkar was an outstanding writer-historian, poet, playwright, and also a rationalist and
social refonner. (Keer, 1988 edition)
Savarkar believed that there needed to be a new definition for the term 'Hindu'. He was
convinced that the term must be far more comprehensive than simply a description of the
15
Anderson and Damle, 1987:33; Keer, 1988:170
21
Chapter 1
religious or spiritual dimensions of those that came within the Hindu fold. It should
encompass the whole of what makes up the Hindu community (see also Savarkar, 1989-6
th
Ed: pI 02ff), and thus he coined the term Hindutva to express this.
...A Hindu, therefore, to sum up the conclusions arrived at, is he who looks upon the land that
extends from Sindu to Sindu-from the Indus to the Seas, - as the land of his forefathers Let
Hinduism concern itself with the salvation of life after death, the concept of God, and the universe.
Let individuals be free to form opinions about the trio. The whole universe from one end to the other
is the real book of religion. But so far as the materialistic and secular concept is concerned the
Hindus are a nation bound by common culture, a common history, a common language, a common
country, and a common religion... (quoted in Keer, 1988:228)
- his Fatherland (Pitribhu), who inherits the blood of that race whose first discernable source could
be traced to the Vedic Saptasindhus and which on its onward march, assimilating much that was
incorporated and ennobling much that was assimilated, has come to be known as the Hindu people,
who has inherited and claims as his own the culture of that race as expressed chiefly in their
common classical language Sanskrit and represented by a common history, a common literature, art,
architecture, law, jurisprudence, rites, rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, fairs and festivals; and
who above all, addresses this land, this Sindusthan as his Holyland (Punyabhu), as the land of his
prophets and seers, of his godmen and gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage. These are the
essentials of Hindutva-a common nation (Rashtra), a common race (Jati) and a common civilzation
(Sanskriti). All these essentials can be summed up by stating in brief that he is a Hindu to whom
Sindhusthan is not only Pitribhu but also Punyabhu. For the first two essentials of Hindutva - nation
and Jati - are clearly denoted and cormoted by the word Pitrubhu while the third essential of
Sanskriti is pre-eminently implied by the word Punyabhu, as it is precisely Sanskriti including
sanskaras i.e. rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, that makes a land a Holyland ...
(Savarkar, 1989: 115-116).
Following the collapse of the Khilafat movement Hindu nationalists made greater efforts to
push forward their pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim agenda. Savarkar's Hindutva was published
barely a year after this occurred. Savarkar's emphasis was on defining the Hindu
community in terms of land, culture and language but with a significant addition, that the
person who calls himself or herself a Hindu should be one who holds the nation of India as
both their 'Fatherland' and 'Holyland' - where one's patriotism and spiritual roots are
rooted in the nation of India. As Maududi took offense at what he saw as Hindu hegemony
in the Indian National Congress so Savarkar and his fellow radical Hindu nationalists took
offense at the way they believed Gandhi capitulated and bent over backwards to pander to
the Muslim community, and this at the expense and detriment of the Hindu community.
His was a call for a virile, militant Hindu response to both Gandhi and the Indian National
Congress and to the Muslim community. Precipitated by recent events such as the Khilafat
movement but not solely based on them, Savarkar sought to promote the cause for the
Hindu community to take up the reins of natural, historical, cultural and political control of
India.
22
Chapter 1
'Blood Brothers ~Swom Enemies'
III. RELIGIOUS CONTEXT
A. Confrontation and Accommodation - The struggle of Islam in the majority nonMuslim context of India
Islam has been intimately involved in the nation of India for nearly 1300 years. In his essay
'From Orthodoxy to Fundamentalism' T.N. Madan (1997 Chapter Four) outlines the
historical background of the religio-political relationship that Muslims encountered on
entering the Indian context. In this essay Madan explains how the early Muslim invaders
into India faced the struggle of how to establish a Muslim state among a majority local
population that were considered infidels. Rather than enforcing Islam 16 on the local people
it was generally decided to seek accommodation with the Hindu community (at times even
going as far as to consider the Hindu community as part of 'the protected class' or zimmis,
which was actually reserved for those considered 'People of the Book' - Jews and
Christians), in return for acceptance of Muslim rule. It was considered that it was best to
'compromise on the part of both antagonistic communities; it was a compromise between
religious orthodoxy and political expediency' (Madan, 1997: 111). It also set the precedent
for the subordination of the religious authority of Islam to the secular authority or power of
the state. However, this was not a settled issue.
The next thousand years of Muslim rule in the India Sub-continent was characterised by
alternating and conflicting forces within the Muslim community that either sought to
compromise and regard with toleration the Hindu community (e.g. Muhammad bin Qasim
- AD 712; lalal ud-din Akbar - who ruled fromI556-1605), or that advocated a strict
enforcement of Islamic rule (e.g. Mahmud, :King of Gazni - AD 1000; Aurangzeb - who
ruled from 1658-1707). Those who fell into the latter category, particularly those who saw
themselves as guardians of orthodoxy (i.e. the ulama), engaged in a battle to reform and
revive both Muslim secular rulers, who saw themselves as above the religious custodians,
and the general Muslim populace who seemed to have remained bound to the customs and
traditions of the Hindu community from whom they had converted. They tended to have
the view that the primary role of the king (secular power) was to eradicate false beliefs
(kufr) and enforce sharia (Islamic Law).
16 This is not to say that forced conversions, killing of Hindus and the destruction of temples did not take
place. These things did happen. The point here is that there was a general sense of political expediency that
necessitated a compromise on any kind of thorough Islamisation of the majority Hindu population.
23
Chapter 1
Shah Wali-Ullah (1703-1762) continued this line proclaiming the need to revitalize
Muslim rule and the Muslim community. His message of purification included a call for a
more 'rational and broad-minded interpretation of the fundamentals of Islamic belief,
thought and practice' (Madan, 1997:129) through the use of itjihad (independent
judgement on an independent basis) including the re-establishment of the religious state.
Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (1786-1831), in the face of the overthrow of Muslim rule by the
British, claimed that India was no longer part of dar ul-Islam (the House of Islam) but was
now dar ul-harb (the 'land or house of war') and that the only valid responses to such an
imperfect state on the part of Muslims was either migration (hijrat) or holy war (jihad). He
also advocated the purification of the lifestyles of Muslims across all levels of society and
the realization of the ideal [Islamic] state. He chose the latter response when he led an
unsuccessful movement injihad.
Following the collapse of the 'so-called Mutiny of 1857' a succession of reformers sought
to influence the Muslim community. Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98) encouraged a
modernist approach advocating a turn to western rationalism, science and education as a
basis for reform, and eventually founding the now famous Aligarh Muslim University
(1874). Others led by a group of more traditional ulama under Muhammad Qasim
Nanotawi, founded the Deoband seminary (1867) near Delhi and stressed the need for
orthodoxy in learning and experience, rejecting the modernist approach. Later Nanotawi
helped start a political organisation called the Jamiyyat-ul-Ulama-I-Hind (the party of the
Ulama of India) to push forward their ideas in the political arena.
Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938) and Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) were twentieth century
leaders who distrusted the modernists but at the same time were not happy with the
Deobandis. They felt these religious ulema tended to place their opinions and
interpretations over that of the original text. While both could be referred to as revivalists
and promoted pan-Islamism they ultimately parted in their ideas. Azad advocated a
pluralist nationalist approach while Iqbal pursued the ideas of Islamic universalism and
promoted the case for a separate cultural space for Indian Muslims (which eventually led to
the demand for Pakistan).
24
Chapter 1
It was in this environment that Abu-l A'la Maududi entered the picture. Once editor of the
official publication of the Jamiyyat-ul-Ulamai-Hind Maududi later became disenchanted
with his former employers over their support for Independence under the auspices of the
Indian National Congress. He likewise opposed the modernists who sided with the British
against the nationalists and who later demanded a separate homeland for the Muslim
community. Maududi rejected both of these responses, and instead 'envisaged', in Madan's
words, 'a future for Indian, and later Pakistani, Muslirns in which they would be co-sharers
of Islamic destiny on a global scale: in his own words, "a rational nationality of believers"
constituting a "world community of Islam'" (in Madan, 1997:143).
B. The Rise of Hindu Nationalism in the face of Muslim/British/Christian enemies
and the influence of Orientalism.
We can trace the roots of Hindu nationalism in India to the beghming of the nineteenth
century and particularly to developments that took place in Bengal, Maharashtra and the
Punjab. A number of factors contributed to this. Madan (1997:203-204) mentions three in
particular; a growing awareness of the cultural and religious heritage of the West among
Indian intellectuals of Bengal and Western India; the lifting of the ban by the British
government in 1813, on proselytization by Christian missionaries; and the influence of
Orientalism. In the first case the ideas of Rationalism and the Enlightenment helped to
foster a renewed intellectual movement among Indians. In the second, the often harsh and
highly critical stance taken by some allied to the Christian cause towards the Hindu
religion and Hindu practices generated great resentment by many in the Hindu community
towards Christian missions 17. And thirdly, those (primarily Europeans) who promoted the
ideas of Orientalism (claiming the idea of a Golden Age of Indian Culture)18 spread their
thinking to India. Initially through the translation of Sanskrit classics these Orientalists
helped to foster a growing sense of Hindu cultural pride especially among intellectuals
who in tum embarked 'upon programmes of religious and social reconstruction' (Ibid,
p204).
17 This is not to say that all Cluistians or Christian missionaries vehemently attacked Hinduism. Christian
missionaries were also at the forefront of movements to reform practices that later Hindu reformers agreed
needed changing such as William Carey in Bengal and sati (the practice of widows committing suicide by
jumping into the flames of their dead husband's funeral fire), and Amy Carmichael, with the selling of young
girls into temple prostitution, in South India. No doubt these activities also brought the missionaries into
conflict with other Hindu elements.
18 For further reading on the subject of Orientalism and its impact on Hindu Nationalism see Peter Van de
Veer, 1998:18-24, 133-152; Madan, 1997:204; Frykenberg, 1993:238.
25
Chapter 1
The nineteenth century saw the growing rise of Hindu nationalism - from Rammohun Roy
and the Brahmo Samaj (1828), who sought to eradicate erroneous religious beliefs and
degenerate social practices among Hindus (e.g. sati); to the Vaishnavite revival of
devotional Hinduism and Vivekananda's revivalist and social service orientated Hindu
vision; to Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay who sought to combine nationalist thought with
religious sentiments; to Dayananda Saraswati and the Arya Samaj (1875) who promoted
the scriptural authority of the Vedas and the need to initiate reconversion rites for those
who had embraced other faiths. Sri Aurobindo Ghose advocated the idea that the nation
was a living embodiment of the divine mother emphasising the deeply spiritual roots of the
Hindu nation. In the early twentieth century two approaches emerged in the Hindu
nationalist movement. On the one hand Gokhale promoted an approach that advocated a
constitutional and gradual change towards achieving their ends. On the other, men such as
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Madan Mohan Malaviya
pushed fOlWard a 'militant Hindu nationalist discourse'. These men were instrumental in
the founding of the Hindu Mahasabha (1915), a political party dedicated to protect and
promote Hindu interests. In the midst of this newfound Hindu assertiveness V.D. Savarkar
(who later became the President of the Hindu Mahasabha) wrote Hindutva - Who is a
Hindu? (1923) and within two years (1925) Dr. K.B. Hedgewar had established the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ostensibly to defend Hindu people and the Hindu
nation. This was the setting in which Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar entered after taking over
the leadership of the RSS following Dr.Hedgewar's death in 1940. Continuing on from
Savarkar and Hedgewar, Golwalkar worked towards the protection of Hindu culture
defining the nation in exclusively Hindu terms and producing the ideological treatise on
RSS ideology - We or our Nationhood Defined (1939) (Madan, 1997: Chapter 7; see also
Hansen, 1999, Chapter 2).
IV.
THE MODERN PHENOMENON OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
A word is needed here on the subject of religious fundamentalism. The twentieth century
has witnessed the emergence of a large number and variety of radical religious movements
that have crossed all major religions (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism)
and spanned the globe geographically. Martin Marty and Scott Appleby's monumental
Fundamentalism Project is one of many works that have tried to analyse and describe this
26
'Blood Brothers
~Swom
Chapter 1
Enemies'
phenomenon. Although, as Madan points out in the Muslim context, fundamentalism may
merely be the modem (i.e. mostly twentieth century) version of a historical process of
reform and revival that dates back hundreds of years (Madan, 1997:Chapter Four), it is
valid to say that it is a recent phenomenon that has been precipitated by factors such as
post-Enlightenment modernity, colonialism and the resultant cultural impact of the West
on the rest of the world.
Some characteristics that mark this movement include: 1. A predominantly modem (postenlightenment) phenomenon; 2. Identification of 'Enemies within and without';
3. Exclusivist/ Absolutist - uncompromising; 4. Scripture or 'Fundamentals' as authority;
5. Selectively traditional and selectively modern; 6. No division of sacred and secular;
7. Institution Building - of organisations and structures to influence all of society; 8.
Desire for power; 9. Charismatic male leadership; 10. Passionate Believing and Missionary
Zeal (Radford, 1999a: 5_8 19).
There can be no doubt that Maududi and Golwalkar, their ideas and the organisations that
they were involved with, are intimately associated with this phenomenon and include most
if not all of the above characteristics in one form or another.
CONCLUSION
Processes that included the contexts and environments that surrounded them molded both
Golwalkar and Maududi and their ideas. British colonial rule, the events of the early
twentieth century such as the Khilafat and Independence movements and their respective
community (Muslim and Hindu) histories all played a part in this process.
Since the early Muslim incursions into Indian territory Muslims have had to deal with the
issues of what it means to hold political authority and maintain religious orthodoxy in the
face of a majority non-Muslim, non- 'People of the Book' populace. This struggle between
governance and the advocacy of an Islamic state, and the 'confrontation' and on-going
influence of the Hindu kafr community led to great tensions resulting in a series of reform
and revivalistic movements within the Muslim community. British authority supplanting
19
See also Marty and Appleby, 1991 :ix-x; 814-842.
27
Chapter 1
the Muslim ruling dynasties left a further scar. Some resolved these issues by embracing
the British (i.e. western) way of life and thinking, some sought refuge in traditional
orthodoxy, while others such as Maududi sought a more radical approach advocating both
political and religious renewal towards an Islamic state.
The Hindu community has had to respond to the conflicting 'confrontation and
accommodation' approaches taken by various Muslim rulers over the last thousand years
or so. The more recent ascendancy of the British to political authority in India added a
completely new dimension. British rule was not only non-Islamic but it also introduced
political, cultural and educational ways and ideas that were very different from their own.
The interaction with these new ways and ideas gave an opportunity for some to bring
change in the traditions and ways of the Hindu community. Some sought reform. Some
sought revival and renewal of Hindu religious experience. Others believed it was finally
time to strengthen Hindu community and identity in the face of continued foreign
invasions and influence. Golwalkar inherited the latter approach and proceeded to advocate
a renewal of Hindu ways, ideas and identity in the lives of all Hindu people, with the intent
of transforming India into a robust nation dominated by Hindu culture over and against all
foreign intrusions whether it be Muslim or British rule; Christian, Islamic or western
culture/religion/ways.
28
Chapter 2
"Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies'
CHAPTER TWO
THE QIJESTION OF IDENTITY - WHO OR WHAT IS A MUSLIM/HINDU?
Having established the context for Maududi and Golwalkar and the background to their ideas,
this chapter looks at their ideas relating to the question of identity, especially as they define
self-identity and the renewal of individuals within their respective Muslim and Hindu
communities. This is the foundation on which they develop ana expand their ideas relating to
society and the state, and the reason why it is necessary to consider them in this initial stage of
the thesis. The next chapter will continue this idea of identity but with a greater emphasis on
group or community identity. The question addressed here is - Who or what is a
Muslim/Hindu? And if the transformation of society was their objective, how did Maududi
and Golwalkar envisage this transformation happening in their particular religious/commlUlity
contexts, and what were the underlying principles on which they based their ideas?
Both Maududi and Golwalkar were like prophetic voices to their respective communities.
They spoke to their communities with a view to revitalising, renewing, regenerating and
restoring them to their rightful place as strong, vibrant religious, cultural and political societies
patterned according to correct religio/cultural ideals. However expansive their particular
visions may have been, both these men were clear that the total transformation of society that
they envisaged was not going to happen in a moment of time or through the effort of a few
individuals or by a sudden upheaval or overnight revolution. Maududi and Golwalkar both
recognised that for this revitalisation or strengthening of society to take place they needed to
first see a transformation internally (from within). Individuals in society must be
changed/transformed/renewed and conformed to the 'ideal or model' Muslim or Hindu.
These individuals, they believed, if once joined together would in time become a larger and
larger group. As others are also transformed, a critical mass would build up to a point where
they would logically influence a total societal transformation. In this case the formula looks
something like this: Ixlxlxl 1 + time = change. When people's lives are changed from within,
and they come to places of influence, they will be legitimate community leaders. Why?
29
Chapter 2
Because they will bring about change that reflects the ideals espoused by those claiming to
represent their communities and it will be something that is lived out in spirit (internalised) as
well as in practice (externalised). This kind of change is seen as permanent or lasting as
opposed to sudden change that has the danger of being short-lived and temporary. The vision
for what this change looks like harkened back to times in the 'glorious' (hoary) past when
Muslims (on the part of Maududi) and Hindus (on the part of Golwalkar) were dominant and
strong both politically and religiously.
Maududi and the Individual

In describing Maududi's plan for society, Madan says that he argued 'that there could be no
Islamic state without an Islamic revolution' (1997: 140). Revolution was not to be a violent
upheaval externally in society but an internal change in the lives of Muslims in society.
Charles Adams points out that Maududi's goal was the 'restructuring of Indian society in an
Islamic pattern... [The best way to transform a society] is by the creation of a small, informed,
dedicated and disciplined group who might capture social and political leadership. It was a
requirement, therefore, that his group should be thoroughly Islamic both in ideas and conduct,
and to this end he built a program of instruction and training. He expressed the ideal at which
he aimed as the creation of a salih jama 'at, a righteous group, a saving element, or a holy
minority, which would leaven the whole lump of society.' (Adams, 1966:375)
Golwalkar and the Individual
'The transformation of man is of supreme importance', comments Anderson and Damle on

this idea, 'for such a change is, in the RSS belief system [i.e. according to Golwalkar], the
necessary prerequisite for revitalizing society and for sustaining it' (1987:74). Golwalkar
himself says, 'National Oneness cannot be achieved through elections or political propaganda.
Political techniques - even political power -for that matter - can hardly infuse a spirit of
devotion, heroism, character, amity, or sacrifice in the people. In fact, without having the
grassroots of a well-knit national life, the political parties degenerate into mutual hostility and
ruin the national fabric' (Golwalkar, 2000a). 'The RSS', adds Jaffrelot, 'set itself up to reform
I I use the multiplication sign (x) rather than the addition sign (+) because as movements develop they grow
synergistically rather than by simple addition.
30
Chapter 2
Hindu society by following a form of organicism based on sacrifice of the individual. Its
ambition was therefore to penetrate the whole of society through its network of shakhas. It
took the form of a long-term [italics mine] project. .. ' (1999:77)
An interesting contrast here, is that, whereas Maududi seemed to focus on setting up an

organisation of 'commando-like' dedicated elite workers who would work towards saving
Muslim society [over society as a whole]; Golwalkar (at least outwardly) did not claim to be
building the Sangh (a personal term for the RSS family) as an organisation separate or distinct
from society, but as a vehicle for moulding the whole of society, within society, into an
organised entity (Golwalkar, 1996:399; also Golwalkar, 200Gb). Nevertheless, in practice, the
RSS has remained a very close-knit organisation with a clear hierarchy of leadership and
strictly defined membership. And while many of its members may also have 'normal'
vocations in society [the key managers in the RSS are 'professional' in the sense that this is
their sole vocation], they playa distinctive organising and influencing role in society as their
own unique entity.
I. MAUDUDI
Maududi certainly developed his ideas over time. While it is clear that there does seem to have
been a transition from an apologist to reformer to political activist in his life, the ideas
explained below represent the consistent underlying precepts which formed the foundations
for his ideas on society in general such as politics and economics.
Maududi approached this idea of the transformation of society from several directions:
1. Clarifying 'the twin and interconnected' Quranic concepts of the Unity of God
(tawheed) and Divine Sovereignty (haldmiyya).

2. The appropriate response that people should have to that understanding - individually
and communally.
3. A preoccupation with identifying what is true or pure Islam, and who is a true Muslim,
and who is not, and the necessary challenge to be in the former category. This follows
a basic premise that once people are aware of the right knowledge (or truth) then they
will be able to be right people and live right lives.
31
Chapter 2
A. Right Knowledge
1. Tawheed - The Unity of the Godhead
Fundamentally Maududi means by this the fact that there is only One God in the lUliverse and
that there are no other rivals for that place. Quoting the first line of the shahada or confession
of faith for Muslims, La ilaha illa 'iltah (There is no god but Allah), Maududi explains that
'Only that being can be our God who is the Master, Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer, who
listens to our prayers and grants them, and who is worthy of our worship and obedience'
(1997:72). God (Allah) alone has this place.
In a highly descriptive essay Maududi explains what this means:

Among the fundamentals of Islam, the most important is belief in One God, - not just the conviction that
He exists or that He is One - but that He alone is Creator, Master, Ruler, and Administrator of all that
exists. The universe exists because God wills it to exist, it functions because God wills it to function,
and God provides the sustenance and the energy which everything of the universe requires for its
existence and growth. All the attributes of Sovereignty reside in God alone, and no one else has a share
in them in the slightest degree. He alone possesses all the attributes of Divinity, and no other than God
possesses any of the attributes. He views the whole universe in an instantaneous single glance. He has
direct knowledge of the Universe, and all that is in the universe. He knows not only the present but its
past and its future as well. The omnipresence and omniscience is the attribute of God alone and no other.
There was no 'before' Him and there is no 'after' Him. He has been there always - eternal and abiding.
All else is transient. He alone is eternally living and present. He is no one's progeny. Whatever exists,
besides His self, is His own creation, and no other can identify himself in any manner with the Lord of
the universe, or claim to be His son or daughter. He is man's single Deity. To associate anyone in His
worship is a great sin and is an act of infidelity. (1996:5)
The opposite to the concept of tawheed is the idea of shirk (associating something or someone
else with God - i.e. polytheism). Maududi denounces shirk in all forms and comments that
humankind's response must be one of 'acknowledgement of the overlordship of the one God
in all fields of existence ... ' (1986:168) - man is to worship Him alone.
Because Allah alone is God then it follows that everyone/thing else is subservient to Him. To
worship or follow anyone/thing else other than Allah is shirk and the person who does so faces
the consequences. Therefore, humankind must turn aside from all false gods and lUlfeservedly
worship Allah alone.
32
Chapter 2
Verily I have abandoned the creed on a people who believe not in Allah and who are disbelievers in
Hereafter. And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It never was for us to
attribute aught a partner to Allah. This is the bounty of Allah unto us and unto mankind; but most give not
thanks. 0 my fellow prisoners! Are diverse lords better, or Allah, the One, the Subdure? Those whom ye
worship beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers. Allah hath revealed no
sanction for them. The Authority rests with Allah alone, Who hath commanded you that ye obey none save
Him. This is the right religion, but most men know it not. (reference to the Quran 12:37-40, where Joseph is
speaking - 1986: 167)
2. Hakkimiya - The Exclusive Sovereignty of God
'God has sovereignty over the entire life of man,' Maududi maintains. 'The Quranic concept
of the sovereignty of God is quite simple. God is the Creator of the Universe. He is the
Sustainer and Ruler. It is His will that prevails in the cosmos all around. As all creation is His,
His command should also be established and obeyed in man's society. He is the real Sovereign
and His will should reign supreme' (1986: 166). Paralleling his use of the first line of the
shahada in terms of the Oneness of God Maududi further interprets this in terms of God's
Sovereignty to mean that 'There is none other to be obeyed but God' (Adams, 1966:381).
Allah demands exclusive worship and exclusive obedience!
In order to emphasise his point Maududi exegetes the following Quranic passages:
Verily, your Lord is Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the
Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is the haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and
the moon and the stars subservient by His command. Verily His is all the creation and His is the
Command (the Law). Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the worlds' (Qur'an - 7:54) and 'He unto Whom
belongeth the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He hath taken unto Himself no son nor hath He
any partner in the Sovereignty. He hath created everything and hath meted out for it a measure. (25:2).
Maududi explained that God is not merely Creator of the Universe; He is also its Ruler and
Governor (Qur'an 7:54 - istawa 'alaI 'arsh - 'Mounted on the Throne'). Having created the
Universe God has not simply walked away, remained passive or 'gone to sleep' it is He who
continues to sustain and control it. 'All authority and power [have always, continues, will
continue to] rest with Him' and the future of all He created, likewise, is dependent on Him
(1986: 169). He further points out that God is also Commander and Ruler (lahu al-khalq waalAmr - 'Verily His the creation and His is the command'). As the actual and complete Ruler
God exercises real control over His kingdom. His Will and His Law reign supreme
(1986: 169).
33
Chapter 2
The Arabic word Mulk, Maududi continued, employed in Qur 'an 25:2 conveys the meaning of
supremacy, sovereignty and kingship. Because of this, Maududi, goes on, the Qur 'an gives to
Allah alone the title and position of 'the Governor, King and Ruler of the universe and no one
else shares even a thread of His authority' (1986: 171). His point is that Allah, as the only God
(Deity), can be this Sovereign, only God can exercise all power and authority. Therefore it is
His Commands and Law that we must obey and none other. "To acknowledge this authority of
Allah is the kernel ofthe Islamic concept ofSovereignty (ibid, p171- Italics mine)."
B. Right People (obedience, subservience)
The belief, or underlying worldview that Maududi based both his call to personal revival (of
faith) and the foundation for the social/political/moral system that he put forward, is this very
idea, that because God is the exclusive Sovereign Lord and Master of the universe He
demands our (individually and collectively) total allegiance - in other words that we must
'surrender all rights on overlordship, legislation and exercising of authority over
others ... '( 1986: 136).
According to Maududi the repeated use of the political terms for Allah 'Kingship, Lord and
Sovereign' clearly explain to us the relationship between God with humankind and His other
creation. These terms indicate to us what our appropriate response should be acknowledgement and total obedience to God's authority.
The logical conclusion for Maududi from all of this is that there is no argument as to who has
this rightful claim for humankind's Ilah 2 (worship) and Rabb3 (obedience), and who has the
right to demand that he should be 'served, obeyed and worshipped' - it is Allah alone: 'The
question at issue was not the dominion over the sun, moon and the universe but that of the
2Maududi points out that the Arabic word Uah refers to the object of that which is worshipped. Therefore the
relationship between humankind and God is that of 'the worshipper' and 'the worshipped'. People are to offer
'ibadat (worship) to God and to live as His servant ('abd). This worship or 'ibadat does not simply refer to
various rituals petfonned or prayers spoken but of one whose life is characterised by 'continuous service and
unremitting obedience as that of a slave in relation to his lord' (1986: 128).
3 The literal Arabic meaning for this word, according to Maududi, is 'one who nourishes and sustains and
regulates and petfects' (1986: 129). It is in the very nature of man, he claims, that the one who does these things
for us has the greater claim on our allegiance, the word rabb therefore is also used in the sense of master or
owner. This sense of rabb, meaning master, owner or Lord, is the more orthodox understanding of the meaning of
this word.
34
Chapter 2
allegiance of the people, not that who should be regarded as controlling the forces of nature,
but that who should have the right to claim the obedience ofmen. ' (1986:131)
With this as Maududi's introduction to the relationship between God and humankind he then
focuses on defining what is Islam and who is a true Muslim while at the same time contrasting
the same with the person who is not a Muslim. It is important to remember as we discuss these
ideas that the primary target audience for Maududi were those who considered themselves
within the 'Muslim fold' or ummah, not those from the non-Muslim communities. Although
Maududi was committed to the spread and influence of Islam over non-Muslims, his main
point of issue was that, if the Muslim community could be renewed and re-established in their
faith the later would happen naturally in due course. Therefore his prophetic voice was
primarily directed towards the 'unbelievers among the believers' .
c. Right Lives (Path) - Who is a true Muslim and what does Islam Mean?
Maududi states that a person does not become a Muslim by virtue of his/her birth: whether
they were born into a family who claim to be Muslims or whether they happened to be born in
a political nation that gives them a 'Muslim' tag, whether their race happens to be one
associated with Islam or because they bear a Muslim name - but rather 'he is a Muslim
because he follows Islam' (1997:48). For Maududi it is a definite individual choice to
willingly acknowledge and submit oneself to the authority of Allah. Likewise an individual
can cease to be a Muslim by choosing to refuse to do the above and find themselves expelled
from the Muslim community. In Maududi' swords, ' ... it is not something automatically
inherited from your parents, which remains yours for life, irrespective of your attitudes and
behaviour. It a is a gift which you must continually strive to deserve if you want to retain it; if
you are indifferent to it, it may be taken away from you, God forbid.' (1997:49).
Accepting Islam does not mean either that whoever simply makes a profession that they claim
to be a Muslim is a true Muslim. Uttering a few Arabic phrases (such as the shahada)4 does
not make one a Muslim if the person uttering them has no idea what the phrases mean.
Accepting Islam is a conscious and deliberate acceptance of the teachings which come through
Contrary to the more traditional teaching.

35
Chapter 2
the Prophet Muhammad (as revealed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah) and then the living out of
what that means. For Maududi the meaning was essential for true conversion or in his words,
the first essential prerequisite is knowledge. In one of his addresses he explains it as follows:
... no man becomes truly a Muslim without knowing the meaning of Islam, because he becomes a
Muslim not through birth but through knowledge. Unless you come to know the basic and necessary
teachings of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, how can you believe in him, have faith in
him, and how can you act according to what he taught? And if you do not have faith in him, lrnowingly
and consciously, as fully as you can, how can you become true Muslims? (1997 :49-50)
Of course the second prerequisite follows and that is that the person puts that knowledge into
practice. The person who lacks this knowledge or fails to put it into practice is as good as a
kafir, the Islamic tenn Maududi uses to identify those who are not true Muslims. Literally it
means one who does not accept God's guidance and is ungrateful to Him (i.e. forget what you
owe to God. - 1997:47, 50). Because a kafir does not understand what the right relationship
between God and humankind is, and because he /she does not know what the will of God is,
they cannot then follow the right path. If one who is called or is known as a Muslim also lacks
this understanding (and is ignorant) and therefore fails to live according to God's will,
Maududi asked the question whether they should contillue to be called a Muslim rather than a
kafir!
It should be remembered that Maududi's challenge is to revitalise Muslim society. To do so
one must root out ignorance, unbelief and hypocrisy from individuals in the community, and
therefore the community as a whole, and to redirect them to true belief and living. Maududi
placed great emphasis on the need to teach the Muslim community the right way of living. The
less knowledge people had the less likely they would be able to believe correctly and live
rightly. This actually brings up a larger issue to which I had briefly alluded in chapter one and
refers back to the context in which Maududi found himself.
The Muslim masses were largely made up of low caste Hindu converts who maintained a kind
of syncretistic
Muslim
faith
after conversion -
retaining
many
Hindu/animistic
practises/beliefs while outwardly maintaining a Muslim identity. Some writers claim that
revivalists like Maududi represented the controlling Muslim elite who sought to maintain their
privileged position (albeit an orthodox one) in Muslim society. They did this by enforcing the
majority to be like them (e.g. Singh, 2000: 17). This would firstly, enable the revivalists and
their supporters, with their superior knowledge of orthodoxy, to maintain their leadership
36
Chapter 2
position. And secondly, by purifying the 'mixed-up' masses that claimed some kind of
Muslim identity, these revivalists would ensure greater numbers for their side in the effort to
influence the British authorities. That this was at least a serious issue becomes evident when
we realise that at this time of Maududi's life (late 1930s to early 1940s) the call for
independence (swaraj) from the British was at its zenith (see Madan, 1997:chapter four; see
also Minault, 1999).
Islam, says Maududi, also means 'submission and obedience to God' (1997:65). Utilising
telTIlS such as 'entrusting yourselves completely', 'relinquishing all claims to independence'
'surrendering yourselves' (ibid, p65) before the sovereignty of God, Maududi pushes the claim
of God to every area of a person's life. Only God's authority must be listened to and obeyed
and that authority has precedence over every other fonn of authority whether it be an
individual's opinion/reason, their family or cultural customs,
the ways of other
peoples/religions or of particular human leaders. A Muslim is one who renounces all other
authority in favour of God's authority. While this view may be heard from other Muslim
religious leaders, the point which sets Maududi apart, and to which this thesis is directed, is
the way Maududi included in these ideas, not merely the authority of God over personal
matters (inheritance, divorce etc.) but also a detailed blueprint of the way the authority of God
should be worked out in the affairs of the state (Maududi, 1997: 148). It begins with the
acceptance of God as Lord in every area of life. It leads to the recognition that if it is true in
the personal realm it must also be true in the societal and political realms as well. Maududi
sought to interpret the Qur'an and the traditions on these areas and then to passionately
articulate his thoughts about them.
Maududi's preoccupation with identifying those who were in the 'true Muslim' fold and those
who were not (i.e. ones who commit kafr or who were kafirs) is seen in the fact that he gives
at least 5-6 different kinds of lists for clarifying where people actually stood before God.
These include: 1. True Muslims v. kafirs (Ibid:49-94); 2.True Muslims v. Partial Muslims
(ibid:114-118); 3. Four levels of Disobedience (1986:175); 4. Four classifications of Men
(1996b:29); 5. True and False Muslims (1992:223); and 6.True Islam v. Legal Islam
(1997: 112-114). These classifications indicated the status of a person graded on a scale from
total degradation on the one hand to ideal 'True Muslimhood' on the other. The first
37
Chapter 2
classification I have already touched upon above. In the second Maududi claims the partial
Muslim is the one who professes to be a Muslim but who then confines Islam only to a part of
their lives.
Their relations with their businesses, their lives, and children, families, societies - will all to a great
extent be unaffected by Islam based on secular considerations. As landlords, traders, rulers, soldiers,
professional people - in all spheres they will behave as if they are autonomous having no connection
with their positions as Muslims. When such people establish cultural, educational or political norms and
institutions, these have nothing to do with Islam, even thought they seem Islamic' [italics mine]
(1997:114).
In contrast true Muslims are:

... those who completely merge their personalities and existences into Islam. All their roles they have
become subordinate to the one role of being Muslims. They live as Muslims when they live as fathers,
sons, husbands or wives, businessmen, landlords, labourers and employers. Their feelings, their desires,
their ideologies, their thoughts, and opinions, their likes and dislikes, all are shaped by Islam. Allah's
guidance holds complete sway over their hearts and minds, their eyes and ears, their bellies, their sexual
desires, their hands and their feet, their bodies and their souls. Neither their loves nor their hatreds, are
formed independently of Islamic criteria. Whether they fight or make friends, it is purely for the sake of
Islam. If they give anything to anybody, it is because Islam requires it to be given. If they withhold from
anybody, it is because Islam wants it to be withheld.
And this attitude of theirs is not limited to personal lives; their public lives, their societies are also based
entirely on Islam. Their collectivity exists for Islam alone; their collective behaviour is governed by the
precepts of Islam alone. (ibid, p 115)
The Sovereignty of God demands obedience to Allah's Will (Law) that affects every area of a
person's life. A true Muslim is one who conforms to this and actively seeks to see this happen
in both personal and public arenas. A partial Muslim is one who claims the name only but
wishes to allow other authorities (influences - e.g. secular values) govern how they behave in
most areas of their life.
The third list classifies the various kinds of disobedience (therefore they are false Muslims)
that Muslims fall into:
1. Those who called themselves Muslims but maintained beliefs/customs (idolatrous and
polytheistic) that were more closely related to their culturaVfamily traditions than to the
Qur 'an and the Sunnah.
2.
Those who called themselves Muslims but were more interested in following the
customs/ideas and ways of other civilisations and cultures (especially western, secular) and
limited Islam to only certain aspects of their lives.
3. Those who were religiously Muslim but whose lives were not wholly devoted to God.
4. Those Muslims who claimed no religious faith at all. (!986:175)
38
Chapter 2
The fourth list, a classification of four different kinds of Muslims, lists in descending order of
merit:
1. Those who have a firm faith and follow the way of God with complete and fervent
devotion.
2.
Those who have faith and belief in God, His Law, the Day of Judgement but whose faith
is not deep and weak so that they are not fully submitted to God. They deserve some
punishment but are not directly revolting against God so still remain Muslims.
3. Those who possess no faith at all. They refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of God and
are rebels. Even though their conduct may not be bad and are not directly involved in
corruption and violence, their good deeds will be of no value.
4. Those who possess neither faith nor good deeds. The worst of the lot! (1996b:29)
The fifth list defines a true Muslim as one who has faith and deeds. They don't just 'talk the
talk but walk the walk'! However, false Muslims are those who:
1. Stand for 'freedom' of opinion to live and act. Their authority for living is whatever they
think or feel is best and religion has not part in their life.
2. Those who profess some religion but in reality follow their own opinions. Their lives are
influenced more by other considerations and in actuality make religion conform to their
views rather than their views conform to true religion.
3. Those who simply allow themselves to blindly follow their forefathers (cultural ways) or
their contemporaries (modem western influenced thinkers) (1992:223).
More significant perhaps is Maududi' s division between 'Legal' and True' Islam (1997: 113114) in his sixth list. Legal Islam is that form of Islam that outwardly conforms to what the
letter of the Law demands. Verbal affirmation and outward compliance to those essential signs
that follow that affirmation (e.g. Belief in Allah, the Messenger, the Qur 'an, the Hereafter) are
seen as enough proof of your Islamic allegiance. In fact this definition, according to Maududi
has provided the legal and cultural basis on which Islamic society has been organised. By it
people are recognised as being a part of the Muslim ummah (corrununity) and have their rights
guaranteed as Muslims. However, this will not be the basis
all
which Muslims will be judged
in the Hereafter. This legal affirmation may be sufficient for earthly purposes where men can
39
Chapter 2
only see the exterior but God will judge between the true Muslim (Mumin - true believer);
'Allah sees deep into your hearts and knows precisely the degree of your Iman [faith].' The
one who has wholly devoted his life only to God will be judged a mumin and the one who has
not a munafiq (hypocrite).
These lists are not meant to convey a chronological changing of Maududi' s ideas, and indeed
there is a level of overlap between them, but rather, seen together, they show us that Maududi
recognised that individuals within the Muslim community were not uniformly the same.
Written at different times and in different contexts the lists indicate that Maududi both had a
tendency to say the same thing but in slightly different ways but also to add classifications that
he may have omitted before or were the focus of the specific discussion at hand. For him there
were various levels and kinds of impurity that needed to be identified and cleansed in order for
the Muslim community, as a whole, to finally be able to realise the revitalisation and renewal
that he envisioned and which he believed would ultimately lead to the restoration of a
powerful religious, economic, cultural and political Islamic society. Realistic or not, Maududi
was a dreamer who passionately believed in his vision for a renewed Islamic society in India.
Maududi asked: Why are Muslims humiliated today? (1997:57). The answer he gave was that
it was because there are too many Muslims who are not totally devoted to believing and living
their lives (in every area) wholly consistent with the teachings of the Qur 'an and the Sunnah.
They have turned off the straight path. It is because of these kinds of so-called Muslims that
Muslims have lost political control of not only the subcontinent but also of the Turkish
Caliphate. If only Muslims would tum back to Allah with whole hearted devotion, if only they
would allow the teachings of the Qur 'an and the Sunnah to be their guides in every aspect of
their lives then Islam would once again return to its fanner glory where Muslims would both
live lives pleasing to Allah (right relationship with God, other Muslims and the world around
them) but would also live under political control of their own societies. While it may seem that
this position would encourage a view that one should wait until Muslims in society are
renewed in their faith before seeking political control, for Maududi, as we will see, the
legitimate role of government in an Islamic context, is to take an active stand in enforcing that
'renewal' in society. This became even more true in Maududi' s thinking when he moved to
Pakistan after partition (1947) and saw the possibilities of a truly Islamic state taking place.
40
Chapter 2
<Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'
II.
GOLWALKAR
Golwalkar, similarly, had visions for the transformation of the whole of society, in this case,
the wider Hindu community. And like Maududi he too saw this transformation beginning with
the need for self-definition and the renewal of the inner person as a pre-requisite for lasting
societal change. Ideas, to be effective, must have strong foundations and it is on these
concerns for a clearly defined identity that Golwalkar and Maududi (see above) based their
thinking and used them as a springboard to broader issues. Some of these issues will be
discussed later.
Golwalkar incorporated many ~f Savarkar's ideas concerning the definition of a Hindu and the
Hindu community. Like Savarkar, Golwalkar begins his discussion of Hindu identity from a
corporate or community level, or in their terms, a 'national' level. A Hindu derives his/her
identity in direct relationship to their identification as being part of the Hindu Nation
(Rashtra). Having defined the Hindu Nation Golwalkar then diagnoses what went wrong for
the Hindu community - a loss of national [selfJ consciousness. His prescriptionJantidote for
the problem is the education and transfonnation of individual Hindus into what he refers to as
the 'ideal Hindu manhood' (1996:436ff). These transformed Hindus, wholly devoted to this
end, will then ideally be merged into a revitalised Hindu Nation - the true focus of worship.
A. The Problem - 'Our National Malady' - Loss of living National Consciousness
Although We or our Nationhood Defined (originally published in 1939) came a little over a
decade later than Savarkar's Hindutva - Who is a Hindu? (originally published in 1923), both
sought to bring definition to the Hindu community. By defining Hindus in tenns of territory,
blood and culture, and by claiming the Hindu Nation to be synonymous with what was then
geographically the Indian subcontinent, both Golwalkar and Savarkar laid claim for the Hindu
community to the rights of rulership culturally and politically5 over the land and peoples of
this area. The problem, as Golwalkarperceived it, was that over the last thousand years or so
41
Chapter 2
there has been a 'loss of living consciousness of one Hindu nation' by the Hindu Nation. After
an initial period of prosperity and perfect harmony the [one] Hindu Nation succumbed to a
sense of security and carelessness which eventually led to the break up into smaller
principalities.
This breakdown of 'consciousness' and 'kingdom' made the Hindu Nation 'vulnerable to
attack from without', firstly in the fonn of Buddhism (although originating from Indian soil
Savarkar claims that Indian Buddhists too became dominated by foreign nations - 1989:2229), and later in the form of Islam and the British (1989: 14-1 7). The Hindu Nation succumbed
to the political, religious and cultural power and influence of these foreign forces. If they did
not totally reject their Hindu roots they certainly aped foreign manners, customs and ideas. As
a result the Hindu Nation became 'deculturalised', 'denationalised', suffering 'a loss of
national consciousness', of 'national sentiment', a 'donnancy of national feeling' while at the
same time 'suppressing noble patriotism' and 'real nationality'. Those people who made up
the Hindu Nation had allowed a kind of stupor or ignorance to overcome them and dull their
real sense(s) of identity.
B. The Antidote - Restoring National Consciousness - 'Ideal Hindu Manhood'
According to Golwalkar, what was needed was 'cultural regeneration', a kind of 'Hindu
National renaissance' that involved rejuvenation of that dulled consciousness and of 'Hindu
reorganisation'. A Nation in ignorance needs to be once again informed of its true identity and
reorganised to regain the place of prominence and dominance it once held. For Golwalkar this
did not simply mean an acknowledgement of one's cultural roots, it also required a renewal of
Hindu philosophical thinking and practice 6 This was something that contrasted him with
Savarkar who steered clear of overt Hindu religious terminology (perhaps reflective of his
own more atheistic beliefs) but which was very much a part of Golwalkar's personal history
(as mentioned earlier).
5 Savarkar in particular was more associated with the latter idea, but as I will show, it was also true for
Golwalkar.
6 Re-interpreted and applied to the present circumstances by Golwalkar.
42
Chapter 2
In a kind of paradox, Golwalkar seems to recognise that even given the above there is still
great difficulty in defining, or perhaps in others accepting his definition of what a Hindu is.
Golwalkar claims that Hindu society or culture ultimately 'is a living reality which all of us
feel [italics mine] and experience in every drop of our blood. But though we cannot define it,
we can and must appreciate the special features which mark out the Hindus as a distinct
people' (1996:99, see also p122). It was as much as anything an appeal to the heart and
emotions as it was to any intellectual reasoning - 'We feel (Hindus) therefore we are
(Hindus).'
Rejecting a negative understanding of a Hindu as one who is 'non-Muslim' (which he claims

the then political leaders were apt to do) Golwalkar sought to instil positive content into the
word. The transformation of the Hindu Nation begins when individuals within that nation
wake up out of their self inflicted stupor (if you like a kind of self-forgetfulness). He then
outlines what this waking up or transformation (ideal state of manhood) involves. In
terminology reminiscent of Brahminical thinking (compare, Jaffrelot, 1999:78; Hansen,
1999:94-95) Golwalkar begins by emphasising the fact that, for the Hindu, life is not without
purpose. That purpose is not measured in earthly terms such as position, power, name or fame
but in the 'realisation of his true nature - innate Spark of Divinity, the Reality in him, which
alone takes a man to the state of everlasting supreme bliss' (1996:55). A Hindu then is one
who recognises that he/she is on a journey of self-realisation to becoming one with the
Ultimate Reality (moksha).
For Golwalkar this is not a 'one time conversion event' but a process that involves 'the law of
cause and effect (karma) where every action (cause) has its effect in this process. One life will
not suffice to reach the goal but through the continuous effect of multiple rebirths
(reincarnation) and honest effort a person will eventually completely rid them-self of 'the least
trace of ignorance of his true Divine Self' (1996:56). While recognising the great diversity in
paths of devotion in Hindu society Golwalkar believed there was one common dharma (way
of life) which held it together - it was the 'same philosophy of life, the same goal, the same
beliefs in the supremacy of the inner spirit over the outer gross things of matter, the same path
in re-birth, the same adoration of certain qualities like brahmacharya [control of the senses],
satya [truth], etc, the same holy samskars [spiritual disciplines] (the brackets mine) ... '
43
Chapter 2
(1996: 102). These ideals or values linked all sections of Hindu society together and must be
fostered if any lasting transformation of society was to take place.
What kind of conduct is necessary to progressively realise the 'Ultimate Reality'? Referring to
the Bhagavad Gita, Golwalkar says that one must act out of a sense of duty and without selfish
motive. In other words one must do the right thing without personal attachment, without
thought of receiving any reward or fruit from our action. Having detached oneself from the
effects of our actions we are better able to concentrate on our True Self - 'Do your work, do
your duty in a selfless spirit.' (1996:57). Originally the varna-vyabastha (Hindu social order i.e. Brahman, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Sudra) demarcated what those duties performed were to be,
and when done in a spirit of selfless service, when one worshipped God through such duties,
society would function harmoniously. But for Golwalkar, the reality was that now 'our
(Hindu) people should be reinstalled as the living God in our hearts ... that we are all children
of this great and sacred motherland Bharat Mata' (1996:116). One's duty should now be to
selfless service in the cause of the Hindu people rather than to one's traditional place in the
social order. This 'pure spirit of oneness' transcends the inequality that had wrongly crept into
the Varna system. 7
This is not a mere metaphysical or abstract way of thinking. 'Ultimate Reality' must and can
be seen in this objective world. The objective manifestation of the Reality in the world that
can be felt and experienced and by which one may be able to complete the process of
realisation is 'man' (or humankind). Humankind (more specifically, the 'Hindu Nation') is to
be the object of worship and service.
Man does not live alone; he shuns solitude. He is gregarious by nature. So, human beings come together
and live as social beings in the form of society. Thus he can live well, develop, and manifest the best in
him. He can rise in the social rung and progress towards the fulfilment of the aim of life. It means that
the building up and maintenance of a social order capable of affording each individual full opportunities
to identify with wider and wider social groups and serve society with all he possesses, is the best way for
lighting up the path of every individual towards the realisation of the Ultimate Truth... Service to
humanity is verily service to God (1996:57).
Hindu Society must be focused towards the welfare of humanity, not on the accumulation of
or desire for earthly possessions. In traditional Hindu society, the persons who have evinced
the greatest honour and respect from great and small alike have been those, the sanyasins, who
have shunned the material world and focussed on the more important - the 'inner
There were certainly some that were highly critical of Golwalkar's reformist ideas. See for instance in Kohli,
1993 :91; Andersen and Damle, 1987:81.
44
Chapter 2
possessions'. They are the example for Hindu society. The end goal is achieved when a person
has been able to come to a point where one's greatest loyalty is to the nation over and above
all other 'lower' forms of attachment - those other things which would claim ones allegiance
(Anderson and Damle, 1987:76).
Golwalkar challenges his Hindu audience, whether they are this kind of 'positive Hindu',
whether these feelings and ideals are theirs or whether they are Hindus because of the force of
circumstances, the accident of birth, or because they have simply managed to avoid
conversion to Islam or Christianity8. The challenge remains for those who c~ll themselves
[True] Hindus to assimilate all those key Hindu characteristics that will enable the Hindu
community to once again 'stand before the world as positive, dynamic Hindus.'
Golwalkar summarises his thoughts on this when he says,

Therefore, though the idea of organising Hindu Society may appear to be very simple, it really means
that first of all we should be keenly conscious in our day-to-day life of our Hindu heritage and should
mould every aspect of our life in keeping with those great traditional values. In all that we do, in our
dress, in our behaviour and in all walks of life, that stamp of and conviction should be vividly manifest.
This is the prime responsibility that rests upon us. (1996:59)
One who calls himself a Hindu must begin by imbibing the deep and positive samskars (ideals
lived out in daily life) of the Hindu Nation and practising them in day-to-day life. These ideals
include a life-long commitment to 'discipline and self-restraint, which purify and strengthen
him [sic] to reach the Supreme Goal in life' (1996:60-61). It is the development of Hindu
character - 'The ideal Hindu manhood' - which will ultimately transform Hindu society. While
falling short of claiming the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as the source books for Hindus
to guide their life by (a sticking point for those Hindus who do not regard them as their source
of divine inspiration for life)9 Golwalkar certainly encourages and urges Hindus to see them as
worthy guideposts for identifying those very values and ideals that are embedded in Hindu
culture and which make up Hindu life.
8 Recently there has been a 'second-wave' of conversions ofDalit (low-caste) Hindus to Buddhism led by a man
called Ram Raj, following in the footsteps of Ambedkar of earlier years. Although Golwalkar would have
opposed this, as the present RSS does, at least, in their eyes, it is a conversion to an Indic religion and not to a
perverted foreign one - in other words, a 'lesser of two evils'.
9 According to Golwalkar the Hindu dharma, way of life, is not dependent on any individual person or one
particular religious book as the supreme authority for their dharma or sanskriti ~ see 1996:395.
45
Chapter 2
Golwalkar opposed those Hindus who seemed to promote the Hindu cause out of either
reaction against the actions of Muslims (negative Hinduism) or for political objectives. Instead
he emphasised that a person must uphold the Hindu cause because this is a 'positive conviction
[italics mine] that this is my Hindu Rashtra, this is my dharma, this is my philosophy which I
have to live and set up as a standard for all the nations to follow ...this should be the solid
basis for Hindu reorganisation' (1996:60). This involves not mere lip service or external
affirmation but it must be something lived with understanding and conviction (Golwalkar
refers to this conviction as a Hindu's 'sacred duty'
1996:151-157,433), some thing which
should be able to be realised (not be afraid to put into practice) in every area of a person's life,
personal and public.
Golwalkar believed that the time had come for Hindus to reinstall (or worship) Hindu society
(people) as the 'living God in our hearts' and that the 'supreme call of the times is to revive
the spirit of inherent oneness' (1996:116-117). According to Golwalkar (and akin to his earlier
diversion from a more rationalistic approach that Hindus are Hindus because they 'feel' they
are), unlike people of other faiths, Hindus are born Hindus, 'he gets his first samskar when he
enters the mother's womb and the last when his body is consigned to the flames ... We are
Hindus even before we emerge from the womb of our mother' (1996: 117). Because Hindus
are also bound together by ties of blood and history they must remain as one, recognising that
society is the only permanent reality (dhruvam) and that all else (politics, caste, language,
province etc) are transient (adhruvam) (1996: 118). The transient must always be subservient
to the permanent. Every individual Hindu must therefore devote themselves to the cause of
building one unified, whole and integrated Hindu Nation or in Golwalkar's words 'to bring to
life the all-round glory and greatness [param vaibhavam] of our Hindu Rashtra' (1996:43).
46
Chapter 2
CONCLUSION
Maududi and Golwalkar both believed that their Muslim and Hindu societies desperately
needed transforming. For this process to be lasting it must first begin through the
transformation of individual lives. Both sought to define the ideal Muslim/Hindu. For
Maududi, this meant returning to the prescriptions of godliness that are found in the revered
sources of Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Muslims need to be made aware of the
knowledge of the truth, of the Unity and Sovereignty of God, and of humankind's need to
respond in worship and total obedience to that demanding overlordship. Only true and total
obedience, only complete submission and devotion to Allah and His Will in every area of a
person's life will suffice to bring about the desired transformation of Muslim society and to
which Maududi passionately called his audience. Indeed only such a Muslim is a true Muslim,
all others are really kafirs (unbelievers) in the sight of Allah for they have given their
allegiance (partially or wholly) to other authorities. The once powerful Muslim society had
fallen short because of the failure of Muslims to know and obey the truth.
Golwalkar's definition of a Hindu referred to Savarkar's earlier ideas. A Hindu was one who
resided in a particular sacred geographical land, was tied in 'inherent' blood to those similar
others, and inherited a way of life (religion) or culture that found its roots 'from eternity' in
the same sacred area and among the same sacred people who spoke the same sacred language.
Hindu society had fallen from its once lofty position because of the failure of Hindus to
embrace the inherent oneness that existed and could be felt. A kind of self-forgetfulness of the
true national consciousness (the ideals of society represented in their culture - sanskriti) that
always existed had overcome Hindus. Hindus therefore needed a wake-up call to shake off this
stupor they had allowed to overcome them, to re-embrace the ideals inherent in their culture
and to once again hold firmly the conviction that the Hindu Nation must truly be the focus of
their worship and sacrificial service, in all areas of life. All else must be subservient to the
Hindu Nation.
Both Maududi and Golwalkar called for transformation of individual lives in order to bring
transformation to the whole of society. Both believed that their respective societies had
faltered because of an ignorance of right knowledge of what a true Muslim/Hindu was and that
what was needed was an 'awareness campaign' to counter this. Maududi and Golwalkar
47
Chapter 2
"
sought to bring their communities back to a sense of 'God-consciousness'. For Maududi this
was a call for humankind to recognise and subrrrit to the will of God (who is 'without') in
absolute obedience, as a servant would to his/her master. For Golwalkar it was the challenge
for 'God (who is 'within') realisation' - The putting aside of ignorance and world-centreness
through self-less service to the Hindu Nation.
Both called for a return to wholehearted
devotion to the ideals that formed the very basis for their respective society (the Muslim
scriptures/Hindu culture) - a devotion that would influence every area of a person and
society's life and which would be totally subservient to the ideal. Allegiance or ultimate
authority was another important element for these men. Maududi saw it as an'imperative for
humankind to bow absolutely to the authority of God (Allah) and therefore to His Law, as the
Supreme guide and basis for life decisions. Golwalkar believed that the Hindu's ultimate
allegiance lay in their culture, the ideals embedded in it and to the Hindu Nation - the outward
manifestation of these things. 10 Maududi believed that one was not born a Muslim; it was an
individual's heart response to Allah, based on right knowledge of the truth revealed in Islam.
On the other hand, Golwalkar was convinced that Hindus were born Hindus. They just needed
to recognise reality, this inherent oneness.
But it was not only transfolTIlation of individual lives that Maududi and Golwalkar were after.
In the end they sought to draw lines or boundaries to define who were true Muslims or true
Hindus, and who were not. Though their answers were contrasting, their goal was the same.
Clarifying this issue also had added benefits. It defined more clearly who their enemies were.
Secular, westernised kafirs according to Maududi or western, Muslim and Christian foreigners
mleccas/foreign ways according to Golwalkar.
Though corrring from two widely different religious backgrounds, and therefore, world-views,
Maududi and Golwalkar ultimately converge in terms of the direction of their ideas. The
answers to the question of identity - initially of individuals, but finally of community (as we
will see in the next chapter) - fonn the building blocks for the transfonnation of society.
10 A certain vagueness in definition is deliberate in an attempt at including as many in the Hindu fold as possible
and to avoid division based on particular religious or philosophical differences.
48
Chapter 3
CHAPTER THREE
QUESTIONS OF IDENTITY: WHO ARE WE - THE COMMUNITY, NATION,

NATIONALISM?
AND WHO ARE THEY ~THE ' THREATENING OTHERS'?
In the previous chapter the question of identity in terms of the individual was addressed:
Who am I as a Hindu or as a Muslim and where do'!' fit in the visionary transformation of
society as espoused by Maududi and Golwalkar, and showed how the answer to this
question was at the core to the thinking of both Maududi and Golwalkar. The identity and
transformation of the individual inevitably leads us to the identity and transformation of
the group, community or society. Ultimately, no matter how much they emphasise the
importance of the renewing of individuals, Maududi's and Golwalkar's goal is not
individual but societal revitalisation, of the wider Hindu and Muslim communities. In this
light, and as we trace their journeys on which their ideas about religion and society
developed, this chapter will focus on group identity
how do they see those groups who
constitute the 'faithful' and those who are considered the 'other'. The specific context of
the early-mid twentieth century requires us to consider these ideas in the terms of
community, nation and nationalism.
I.
Maududi and the idea of Nationalism
A. Conflict with the Traditionalists and the Modernists
As already noted in the first chapter the push for national self-determination was dominant
in both Muslim and Hindu communities on the subcontinent in the first half of the
twentieth century. Maududi found himself in opposition to the two major attitudes
prevailing at the time. On the one hand the Deobandi ulama, the traditional custodians of
the spiritual life of the Muslim community in India, joined hands with the Indian' National
Congress in putting forward the idea of a broad-based coalition supporting 'Indian
nationalism' that included all religious communities. The goal was independence from
British rule under the banner of Indian self-governance that did not single out any specific
community!. On the other the 'modernists', who benefited from and supported European
education and development initially supported a compromise in co-existing with the
49
Ch~fJter
British. A further group splintered from the 'modernists' and developed the idea of a
completely separate homeland for the Muslim community. These 'separatists', led by
Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, advocated the two-nation theory (i.e., that
there are two nations in India, one Muslim and the other Hindu). They declared that the
avowed goal for the Muslim community was not collaboration with the British, nor with
the Indian nationalists (i.e. The Indian National Congress) but rather a separate political
land (nation) where the Muslim community would be the dominant/majority communitythis land they called 'Pakistan' (Land of the Pure).
The reasons for Maududi's opposition to all these proposals give us insight to his thinking
particularly as we begin to consider the broader idea of what relationship religion has with
the state. Maududi opposed the Deobandi ulama because he did not believe that any right
thinking Muslim could agree to a Western ideological formulation of nationalism that
negated the role of the religious point of view in society, which was the cornerstone of the
Muslim world-view of life. The very idea of nation for Maududi was a 'Western and false
concept'. For Maududi it was just as bad to push for a separate political homeland. Such a
state Maududi claimed, would 'safeguard merely the material interests of Indian Muslims
and neglect their spiritual life, as none of the leaders including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had
Islamic mentality or Islamic habits of thought' (Madan, 1997:139). It would be a country
or nation where Muslims would be a majority but not necessarily a state that would be
governed by Islamic law or principles. It could not work because the very so-called leaders
of the Muslim community failed to live out Islamic ideals in their own lives an essential
pre-requisite for successful Islamisation.
B. Islam is Opposed to the Ideas of Nation and Nationalism
Maududi believed strongly that Islam was against the very ideas of nation and nationalism
and was no doubt influenced greatly by the 'disturbing' events that led to the break up of
the Turkish caliphate by Western influenced secularists and the rise of nationalist
movements particularly among the Arabs.
Firstly, Maududi advocated the idea that the ultimate goal of Islam was not independent
Muslim nation states but rather a 'world state':
I Maududi accused them of 'drinking Jawaharlal's suddhi like sweet syrup' so leading Muslims astray.
(Rafiuddin Ahmed, 1994:675)
50
Chapter 3
.. .in which the chains of racial and national prejudices would be dismantled and all
mankind incorporated in a cultural and political system, with equal rights and equal
opportunities for all, and which hostile competitions would give way to friendly cooperation between peoples that they might mutually assist and contribute to the material
and moral good of one another (Maududi, 1993a: 13).
Commenting on Maududi' s thinking Madan writes that Maududi 'envisaged a future for
Indian and later Pakistani Muslims in which they would be co-sharers of Islamic destiny on
a global scale .. .in his own words, "a rational nationality of believers [constituting] a world
conununity of Islam'" (Madan, 1997:143). Maududi saw the Muslim community on a
global scale. A Muslim's sense of identity cannot be based on particular racial, cultural,
linguistic or political criteria, for Islam transcends all these but rather in their participation
and solidarity with the world-wide community of believers, the Islamic ummah. This
community is bound together with the conviction of the truth of worshipping God,
performing one's duties and obeying divine commands. Made up of those who profess
these beliefs, this global community is in fact one nation, while those who reject them are
another. Therefore humanity, not simply the people of India, is divided into two nations:
the one of Islam and belief, and the other of those who do not believe (and therefore do not
follow the truth). We return therefore, to the Islamic idea of the two 'houses' or 'lands':
dar ul-Islam (land or house of Islam) and dar ul-harb (land or house of war). The
community's boundaries are not defined by nationality, culture, territory or language but
by those who are of the faith of Islam - this community transcends all of the above
qualifications and must remain so if it is truly Islamic.
Maududi was particularly addressing the movements towards independence and

nationalism in the Indian context. Utilising a rationalistic approach Maududi states that
nationalism can only take place where either a particular 'nationality' already exists (i.e.,
bound by culture, language, religion, geography) or if it does not it must of necessity come
into being (1993a: 43ft). He stated that there were only really two kinds of nationalities 'political nationality' or 'cultural nationality'. 'Political nationality' comes into existence
when a group of people are governed by one political system, even though the people
themselves may not be homogenous (i.e., from different cultures). According to Maududi,
this kind of nationality does not give birth to nationalism. On the other hand 'cultural
nationality' is that kind of nationality which:
... is found among those people who are of one religion; who are identical in their thoughts, ideas
and sentiments and feelings; who display the same kind of moral characteristics; who hold common
view-point in relation to all important problems of life - a view-point which may have effected a
uniformity even in the cultural and social manifestations of their life; who take common standards
51
:~,
~..
Chapter 3
of likes and dislikes' lawfulness and unlawfulness, sacredness and profaneness; who mutually
understand their susceptibilities; who are familiar with the habits, temperaments and leanings of one
another; who are bound together by these ties of blood and affection because of inter-marriages and
social relations; who are liable to be motivated by the same historical traditions - in short it is found
only among those who mentally, spiritually, morally, culturally and socially have become one
people, an organic whole. If nationalism can sprout, it can do so only in the soil ofsuch nationality.
Only those people, who manifest this nationality, can develop a common national type and evolve a
common national idea. (Italics mine - 1993a: 43-44)
Maududi further claims that nationalism can only take birth from 'cultural nationality' and
that it is clear that the people of India do not constitute a cultural nationality but rather is
made up of many cultural nationalities. To form a new nationality therefore, either the
culture of one nation may conquer and absorb the cultures of other nations or a common
culture will evolve. Getting to the point Maududi states emphatically that on this basis
nationalism can only be the goal of those who plead for 'Muslim Nationalism' or 'Hindu
Nationalism' (ibid, p45). Here Maududi and Golwalkar (and company) suddenly converge.
The reason is that the description that Maududi gives above is virtually a word for word
rationale for the movement of Hindu nationalism. Maududi immediately, however,
diverges because he has already made it clear that while there may be such a thing as
'Hindu nationalism', India is far from a homogenous Hindu culture and therefore India
cannot be founded on 'Hindu-cultural nationality' (c.p. Savarkar/Golwalkar). Further, it is
incongruous even blasphemous to say that there could be such a thing as 'Muslim
nationalism' when it is viewed in limited territorial terms. He goes as far as to claim that
this expression is as contradictory as 'Communist Fascist', 'Socialist Capitalist' or a
'Chaste Prostitute'! (1993a: 12-13)
Since Muslims should not be identified with any particular national identity it is clear that
any form of territorial nationalism is opposed to Islam. This ideological position left
Maududi with problems when, after independence in 1947, Maududi and many of his
followers decided to leave India and move to the 'nation-state' of Pakistan, the very idea of
which he had so strongly opposed. In order to justify both his presence in the country and
his ongoing participation in the life of the nation of Pakistan, Maududi clarified his
previous opposition, 'I honestly believed, and still believe, that it was my duty to remind
Muslims that their objective should not be just the setting up of a Muslim national state but
of setting up an Islamic state, and that they should try to build up the personal qualities and
character which was essential for the tasks involved' (Ahmed, 1994:676). Nevertheless, the
detractors of Maududi and the Jama'at- I-Islami would continue to hold this against them
for some time to come.
52
Chapter 3
But it was not merely the fact that Maududi saw that a Muslim's primary identity was in
this global ummah, he honestly believed that Islamisation was the 'final dispensation
through which God will establish his kingdom... Islam as the final revolution will not just
be political and administrative like the Muslim rule in India that was replaced by the
British, it will effect the total transformation of the world' (Singh, 2000: 14). Maududi was
not simply seeking to answer the question of identity here. He believed that the total
transfonnation of the world under Islam was the inevitable outcome of the purpose of
things. It was the direction that all Muslims should be working towards. As an international
revolutionary movement jihad (holy struggle) becomes the process by which this
'revolutionary struggle' is initiated [against unIslamic systems of government] and the
means by which the objectives of Islam are achieved [to replace these unIslamic
governments with Islamic rule] (Choueiri, 1997:144; also Maududi; 1997:106). A corollary
of this for Maududi is that 'an attack on an Islamic state is not simply an aggression upon
its territories but a direct assault on Islam' (Ahmed, 1991: 104) and a call for jihad or
retaliatory action and support against such states (aggressors) which are persecuting
Muslims is a legitimate response 2 .
Secondly, Maududi had problems with the fact that nationalism was a secular concept,
born out of a western European context that encouraged competition and conflicts between
neighbouring nation-states. In an essay (originally written in the 1930s) outlining his
thoughts on the nationalism issue in pre-partition India Maududi claims that the whole
foundation of nationalism is completely wrong. It was built on political, economic,
linguistic and cultural foundations that promoted the 'ancient practice of racial prejudice'
(Maududi, 1993a: 18). The effects of nationalism produce national pride, national
consciousness, national self-preservation and national prestige/aggrandisement which,
together, resulted in wars and aggression in the pursuit of the above.
Writing in the 1930s Maududi was very aware of the growing National Socialist movement
in Germany. The Nazis under Hitler promoted the very kind of nationalism that Maududi
considered an 'evil'. Commenting ~n this breed of nationalism Maududi says:
I will comment more onjihad in the context of the state in the fifth chapter. Maududi has much more to say
about jihad which would take up another thesis to explain (see for instance Maududi, 1991 :96, 106;
1997:285-303; Choueiri, 1997:142-145; Lawrence, 1989:216-217; Ahmed, 1991:94, 104ft). Nevertheless I
will add that he does qualify and further eloborate on this statement. Needless to say many radical Muslim
53
Chapter 3
The national self-consciousness of a nationalist can never brook it that he should take as his hero
persons who do not belong to his nationality; accept the central importance and sanctity of such
places as are not situated within his country; admit the cultural influence of a language which may
not be his own, secure inspiration from traditions which may have been imported from outside. He
would regard all these things not only as foreign but would look upon them with that displeasure
and hatred with which everything of foreign invaders is received, and would endeavour his best to
elimillate and cast out all these external influences from the life of his nation. It is the natural
demand of his nationalistic sentiment that he should associate his sentiments of sacredness and
sanctity with his own home-land, that he should sing hymns to rivers and mountains of his own
country, that he should revive his ancient national historical traditions (traditions which this foreign
religion describes as the relics of the age of ignorance) and pride in them. That he should relate his
own past and link his national culture with that of his ancestors in a chronicle sequence, that he
should take as his heroes, historical or legendary or real In short, it is in the nature and constitution
of nationalism that it should condemn everything that comes from the outside and praise those
things which are products of its own home. (1993a: 32-33)
His comments once again amazingly echoed the words of Golwalkar/Savarkar in their own
extrapolation of Hindu Nationalism. Ultimate nationalism is where 'the whole world'
revolves around the nationality of one culture/land/people as defined by a particular person
or group. This culture/land/people is then revered and honoured to the exclusion of other
outside 'foreign' influences.
Maududi had some strong words to say about nationalism. Instead of promoting unity and
harmony (solidarity) in the world nationalism has divided human beings. It has become
humankind's 'greatest curse', whose ideas have 'degraded man to the level of beasts, they
have made him worse than wolves' (1993a:20, 25). Elsewhere he states that, 'these satanic
principles have stood as formidable obstacles and powerful adversaries against the moral
and spiritual teachings [i.e. universal brotherhood] embodied in the heavenly books, and
against the law of God '(brackets mine
1993a:26). It is appropriate here to refer to
comments that Bruce Lawrence makes regarding the opposition that Muslim
fundamentalists have shown to the issue of nationalism. He states that nationalism as an
idea promotes patriotism (as defined by Maududi above in the effects of nationalism)
which appeals to ideals that become transterritorial and universal, 'closer to the notion of
ummah (i.e., corporate solidarity) , (italics mine ~ 1989:200). In other words Maududi and
his later contemporaries saw nationalism not only as a direct 'competitor" between
different nations but with Islam itself. At its heart nationalism is anti-religious (anti-Islam)
and will be a deterrent to the possibility a pan-Islamic movement becoming a reality.
Maududi claims that it was this very idea of nationalism that caused the downfall of the
dream for a Holy Christian Empire (which he saw as a positive religio/political structure ~
1993a: 16-18). He believed that the same response among the various people of Asia and
fundamentalists have used this idea in justifying their violent reaction to what they consider unlslamic
govermnents.
54
Chap~er
Arabia would also ring a 'death knell' for a pan-Islamic movement (the solidarity of the
Muslim ummah), dividing Muslim nation against Muslim nation.
Perhaps the most important grievance that Maududi held against nationalism was that it
claimed the same allegiance (loyalty) that belongs to God (Allah) and the 'shariats'
(the
revealed scriptures and the example of the Prophet Muhammad) of God alone. This
allegiance based on economic, racial or political considerations seeks the total
transformation of society, just like Islam, but based on national interests not on Islamic
principles. It is done for the sake of the nation, not for the sake of Islam. In other words the
nation and nationalism take the place of God. If we refer back to the previous chapter
regarding Maududi' s thoughts on the total Sovereignty of God and his law this makes
perfect sense. In Maududi's Islamic world-view God has claim of obedience over the life
of every person and over every area of life, He will brook no rivals. An attachment or
obedience to any other person, ideology or institution is a form of apostasy and idolatry
and falls into the category of kafr4 . To quote Maududi again:
Nationalism is, indeed, a religion which stands as a rival, and adversary against the shariats of God.
It opposes the shariats of God not only in the intellectual plane but also in practical working, [it]
aims to establish its sovereignty in all these departme:1ts of human life whom the shariats of God
propose to bring under their own control. (1993a:39)
In Lawrence's words nationalism became so despised because it demands the state (nation)
as an 'obedience-context'. What was called for, was for a patriotism that should be directed
towards the world-wide community of Muslims and against the ideas that lured Muslims
away from their faith and undermined the community:
Nationalism becomes the most despised front edge of secularism because it demands the state act as
an obedience-context... 'In its [nationalism] stead', Lawrence continues, ' there should be an
emphasis on the general welfare of all Muslims (malasha) exercised on behalf of the believers
against the prevailing ignorance (jahliya) of time ...Nationalism resurrects the kind of tribalism or
jayliya that Muhammad opposed and which early Muslims, temporarily overcame. In its stead there
should be a patriotism that seeks the benefit of all states of society and of Muslims everywhere, i.e.,
patriotism should replace qawmiya (or ethnocentrism) of one group with the wataniya (or solidarity)
of all participants as equal participants in the Islamic ummah '. (1989:216. See also Choueiri,
1997:102).
Turning his thoughts once again to the form of [cultural] nationalism exhibited in
Germany, Maududi states that it leads to the place where God is equated with the life-force
of the nation. The nation itself becomes the earthly manifestation of God, Hitler is his
Prophet and the 'national goals' the religion he brings. In other words the nation and its
traditional roots becomes the focus of worship, something which Maududi derided but
'shariats' - a term that Maududi uses to describe the sources for the Islamic religion and law (Shariah Law of God).
55
Chapter 3
which Golwalkar, as we will see, promoted. Maududi believed the same thing would
happen to those Muslim nation-states that based their identities on nationalistic ideals
(1933a: 36).
As far as Maududi was concerned nationalism was at odds with Islam because it 'turns the
mind of man from Islam to ignorance ... [When it] enters the heart and mind of a Muslim
from one direction Islam leaves them from another direction ... Any Muslim who has
pledged himself to the evil of nationalism has been divorced by the angels of Islam'
(1993a:37-38). According to Maududi, the world has given itself to the ideology of
nationalism because it does not possess a 'natural moral teaching' by which it can keep
itself in check. The only cure for this sickness is in the shariats of God, and it is only
Muslims in the world that can represent His shariats (1993a: 40).
In summary, the 'nation' of Islam (dar ul-Islam) is the worldwide community of believers
(ummah), whose loyalty and allegiance is not to a particular culture, language or
geographical territory but to Allah and His shariats. Those outside of this community (in
every culture etc) lie in the 'nation' of war (dar ul-harb) where ignorance and unbelief
reign and which is characterised by conflict and rivalry. The choice for every person or
people is straightforward - acknowledge the Sovereignty of God and His law revealed in
Islam, or choose a path of 'evil', of nationalism, that leads to apostasy and its
consequences. The 'threatening others' for Maududi lay primarily in the ideas that secular
nationalism promoted, which Maududi saw as the very antithesis of the ideas and beliefs
inherent in Islam concerning the nature of God and the way the community is to function,
and in the people who had imbibed these ideas and sought to spread them in the Muslim
community.
II.
Golwalkar and the idea of the 'Hindu Nation'
Maududi answered the question of 'community identity' in the context of opposing

'nationalism' as an idea. He advocated a community identity in tenns of a 'nation' that was
defined as a global transterritoriaVtranscultural-linguistic phenomena, the ummah or dar
ul-Islam. Golwalkar sought to answer the question of 'community identity' by promoting
the idea that the 'nation' is specifically 'Hindu' and 'Indian' and that 'nationalism' was
more its driving force.
4
Others spell this as 'kufr'.
56
Chapter 3
IBlood Brothers - Swam Enemies'
Golwalkar, and Savarkar before him, were intent on defining the 'Hindu Nation' both as a
way of establishing boundaries between those who were 'insiders' and 'outsiders' as
community identification but also to push forward the idea of a single, united dominating
(majority) community who should be the primary decision makers in the way the physical
manifestation of that nation is controlled (and this is not limited to the political arena) in
the event of a new political reality (i.e., independence from the British
see Hansen,
1999:13).
A. The 'Nation' defined in terms of Cultural, Racial and Territorial Unity and
Founded on a Series of Exclusions
1) The Hindu Nation (Rashtra)
D. Savarkar's groundbreaking work, Hindutva - Who is a Hindu (1923), established the

basic definitions and premises that later Hindu nationalists, such as Golwalkar,
incorporated as the guiding principles for the movement as a whole. It is vital to look at
Savarkar's thinking in order to appreciate properly Golwalkar's ideas. Savarkar defined the
term Hindutva as 'Hindu-ness'. He saw this as the key ingredient for understanding Hindu
identity. Other similar terms such as Hindu, Hindusthan and Hinduism are included in this
all-inclusive word. It was important for Savarkar to make this clear because there had been
so much debate over the term and definition of the word 'Hindu'. He felt all previous
definitions failed to adequately describe the word particularly as it related to identifying
the boundaries by which a person could be legitimately considered as one within the
Hindu-fold. Other terms were either too inclusive (fuzzy boundaries
no clear community
identity) or too exclusive (it did not include all those who should be included). Savarkar
attempted to reconcile the great differences between the' orthodox' and 'heterodox' within
the Hindu fold and arrived at a definition which he believed could include all sects, when
viewed as whole, but when looked at independently could be viewed as 'such and such
"'Dharma'" (e.g., Sikh Dharma, Buddha Dharma) (1989:102-106).
Basing his ideas on territorial and historical foundations Savarkar's Hindutva encompassed
a combination of three main areas (1989:115-116)5:
5 Savarkar took great pains to detail what these meant in the context of defining who could legitimately claim
to be 'in' (i.e. a Hindu) and 'out' (a non-Hindu). Principally it required a person to fulfil all three areas, or
otherwise, as Savarkar himself explains, other communities, whom he designates as mlecchas or foreigners
(e.g. Muslims and Christians), could qualify. However, as he progresses in his thinking even Savarkar admits
57
Chapter 3
1. A Common Land (or nation Rashtra) - geographically defined (from 'Sindu to

Sindu' - from the Indus - Himalayas - to the Seas) and to which a person felt
attached as both their 'Fatherland' (Pitribhu - physicaVpatriotic origin) and
their 'Holyland' (Punyabhu - spiritual origin)6. This meant, according to
Savarkar, that it included all those whose religious affiliations were derived
from those people whose blood originated in this land and race - i.e. - Vaidik,
Sanatan, Jain, Buddha, Sikh, Avaidak, Brahma, Chandel.
2. A Common Blood - Race (Jati) a person's forefathers came from the racial mix
of those who have resided in this 'Land' for an indeterminable thousands of
years.
3. A Common Civilisation (or Culture - sanskriti) - all that could be included in
the life of a civilisation (common language - SanskritlHindi, history, literature,
art, laws, rites, festivals etc). This definition seeks to both identify who is 'in'
and who is 'out'. Those who are not included are called mlecchas - foreigners.
These people are those who either originated geographically and racially out of
the 'Land' or who those who hold to religious beliefs that did not originate from
a person of the 'Land'. Clearly, those who claim to be Muslim or Christian fall
into this category but Sikhs, Buddhists and tribal peoples would be included
(see also Jaffrelot, 1999:27ff; Elst, 2001 :282f; Hansen, 1999:78-79; Sarkar in
Ludden, 1996:288-289).
Golwalkar following a similar approach to Savarkar's affinns that there is good historical
and 'blood' reasons for using the word 'Hindu' (and not simply because foreigners used it)
to describe the natural people of those residing in the geographical area of India. He refers
to the fact that the name Sapta-Sindhu was already given to the land and people as
mentioned in the oldest records in the world, the Rig Veda, and points out that'S' and 'H'
are commonly inter-changeable in Sanskrit so that Sapta-Sindhu can as equally be read as
Hapta Hindu (1996:98).
there may be the odd individual or so who may be considered Hindu without fulfilling all three requirements
(i.e. there are loopholes!) See Savarkar, 1947: 129ffwhere he explains how Sister Nivedita (an Irish lady who
had embraced Hinduism but not married to a Hindu - another loophole) could still qualify as a Hindu.
6 In this thesis, the words 'Fatherland' and 'Motherland' are often used. 'Fatherland is most often used in the
sense of one's patriotism, a person's physical and emotional bonding for one's nation. 'Motherland' and
'Holyland' are virtually synonymous and refer largely to a person's devotion and worship for one's nation, in
other words, one's spiritual bonding to their nation.
58
Chapter 3
Expanding Savarkar's 'three essentials', and utilising similar European modernistic ideas
of 'nation' Golwalkar formulates what he calls the 'famous five "Unities'" (1947:23). His
definition of the Hindu Nation included descriptions categorised under: 1. Land;
People;
3. Religion;
2.
4. Culture (#3 and #4 were closely linked); and 5. Language
(1947:24ff).
1) Land - Golwalkar emphasises that for a race to 'live the life of a nation' and
blossom they require a defined physical territory (preferably with natural
boundaries - i. e. the mountainous Himalayas In the north and the ocean seas in the
south referred to as Hindusthan or 'Land of the Hindus') encompassing an area
'extending from Iran in the west to the Malay Peninsula in the east, from Tibet in
the north to Sri Lanka in the south' Andersen and Damle, 1987:77; see also
Golwalkar, 1986:83-84). Interestingly, on the cover of Golwalkar's original
treatise on the subject (We) he includes a map of Bharat (another term for the Land
of India) that outlines most of the above countries, including Afghanistan. While
shying away from Maududi's global idea of what the term 'trans-territorial' meant,
Golwalkar certainly had in mind a geographical vision of India which included a
number of territories claimed by others as their own.
2)
People (Race) - Golwalkar states that a Race is 'a hereditary society having
common customs, conunon language, common memories of glory and disaster, in
short, it is a population with a common origin under one culture' (1947:48-49).
The Hindu Nation incorporates all of these. In fact, unlike Savarkar, who seems to
recognise the idea that at some point in history Aryan peoples issued forth into this
'sacred land' (Hindutva p4ff), Golwalkar claims that Hindus have always existed
in Hindusthan, 'we Hindus came into this land from nowhere, but are indigenous
children of the soil always from times immemorial and are natural masters of this
country' (1949: 15). He later goes on to say:
The origins of our people, the date from which we have been living here as a civilised entity, is
unknown to the scholars ofhistory...We existed when there was no necessity for any name. We
were the good, the enlightened people. We were the people who knew about the laws of nature
and the Spirit. We built a great civilisation, a great culture, and a unique social order. We had
brought into life almost everything that was beneficial to man. Then the rest of mankind were
just bipeds and so no distinctive name was given to us ...The name "Hindu", derived from the
river Sindhu, has been associated with us in our history and tradition for so long that it has now
become our universally accepted and adored name (1996:73-74).
3) & 4) Religion (dharma) and Culture (sanskriti)- For Golwalkar these two
'unities' are closely linked to the point where it is difficult to distinguish them. He
speaks of religion (and for Golwalkar this was more closely, though not
59
ChaI--l:er 3
exclusively, identified with Hinduism than Savarkar was willing to suggest) as

being the 'very life-breath of a people, where it governs every action of the
individual as well as of the society as a whole' and culture 'as being the
cumulative affect of age-long customs, traditions, historical ... and most
particularly of religious beliefs and their attendant philosophy...creating the
peculiar Race
Spirit'
[The term
Golwalkar employed to describe the
'consciousness' or life-breath of the Hindu Nation - 1947:27].
5) Language - Any race that lives for an extended period of time in a given
location will evolve its own language its culture, religion, history, traditions etc.
Golwalkar claims that Sanskrit ('the dialect of the Gods') is the language that gave
birth to most of the languages of Bharat (India) and takes place of honour
linguistically for the Hindu Race. He supports Hindi, as the modem language
closest to Sanskrit, and as the language that should bring Hindus (Indians)
together.
2. Key ideas that emerge out of these 'five unities'
a. The Nation as 'Divine Mother' (Bharat Mata).
Evoking imagery that deeply impacted the Indian psyche as well as utilising concepts
intimately associated with Hindu religious tradition (see Andersen and Damle, 1987:77 7)
Golwalkar refers to this sacred land/geography as 'Divine Mother':
...a land which has been to us since hoary times the beloved and sacred Bharat Mata whose very name
floods our hearts with waves of pure and sublime devotion to her... It was this picture of our motherland
with Himalayas dipping its arms in the two seas, at Aryan (Iran) in the West and at Sringapur
(Singapore) in the East, with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) as a lotus petal offered at her sacred feet by the
southern Ocean, that was constantly kept radiant in people's minds for so many thousands of years.
(1986:82, 84)
This imagery had the benefit of a 'two-sided coin'. On the one side is the land itself,
inhabited by her people, a place which nurtured and cared for her people and invoked a
sense of maternal devotion. The great wrong was that this same land had also been
desecrated and raped by various foreign invasions and the partition of India. The devotion
required to this land should not merely be expressed as patriotism (love for the nation) but
also of worship. The land is sacred, it is 'verily the chosen land of God Realisation'
60
Chapter 3
(1996:85). The spiritual life and destiny of Hindu people is intimately linked with the
physical land of Hindusthan as well as being the place where the nation resides. The other
side of the coin is that the Hindu Nation is also referred to as the Divine Mother, of which
the land is merely a part of the sum. The Hindu Nation, as the Divine Mother, and
expressed in terms of the Hindu people and culture 'should be installed as the Living God'
in the hearts of each one (1996:116). This 'Living God' should be loved and served with
total devotion 'in a spirit of sacrifice for its cultural values and way of life' (Rashtra Bhakti
- Kohli, 1993: 17). In a similar vein Golwalkar says that one must also consider the nation
as both fatherland (pitrabhumi) and holyland (puyabhumi). Therefore:
It is up to us to keep a glow that highly evolved sentiment of mother towards our land. Now how are
we to express our devotion to her? Our people have been doing this until this day in a spirit of
religious devotion. They go around the country of pilgrimages, follow the religious injunctions,
recite hymns, worship and offer flowers and take baths in various holy waters. (Kohli, 1993:27)
Merely living on a piece of land is not sufficient to make one group of people a 'nation'.
For Golwalkar, the chief requirement was the emotional bond or sense of belonging that is
felt. It finds expression in unity of culture summarised as 'commonality in goals of life,
ideals of life, values of life' (Kohli, 1993: 17). It is what Golwalkar expressed earlier in this
paper. A Hindu is one because he feels he is one. This sentiment, stated as devotion to the,
'Divine Mother' characterises and holds the Hindu Nation together. 8
b. The Nation as the 'Living God'.
As the 'Living God' the Hindu Nation is not merely the object of worship and devotion but
of complete attachment. Hansen comments that the goal desired for every member of the
Hindu Nation (and in particular for the RSS member who is supposed to epitomise the
'ideal Hindu man') is that the individual eventually 'experiences a greater loyalty to the
nation than to any other 'lower' form of attachment' (1999:76). The bottom-line here is
allegiance. Ultimate authority lies not with family, caste, language or religious sect but in
the Hindu Nation and all else should remain subservient to it. 9 The individual's identity is
meshed with that of the Nation. Therefore, Indian nationalism or Rashtratravad (expressed
7 Anderson and Damle explore this Mother image theme more deeply and then indicate the way the RSS
renerally have sought to utilise it in their communication (1987:77).
Hansen points out that the romanticist views expressed here by Golwalkar had their roots in the scholarship
of Orientalism prevalent in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries (1999: 10-11, 67ft).
9 In this connection Gold suggests that 'Hindu Fundamentalism has emerged as an alternative path for
personal religion that does not demand devotion to a particular deity, but rather concentrates on the
identification of the individual with the Hindu Nation, which for many may "appear more immediately
visible and attainable than the ritual cosmos of traditional Hinduism~' and "offer the most viable personal
religion available'" (in Embree, 1994:629).
61
Chapter 3
in the ideas of Hindu nationalism), is founded on 'individual contribution and sacrifice for
the larger interest of the Rashtra which is the bigger entity' (Kohli, 1993:21).
The adulation of the Nation and the worship of it as 'God', as advocated by Golwalkar,
were precisely what Maududi envisioned as the natural outcome of the 'evil of
nationalism'. The product of nationalism for Maududi was the worship of all things
considered 'national' to the negation of anything else, the example for which he had seen
in Nazi Germany (1993:28,35 - see Quotes from Hitler and the creed of the Nazi Youth).
c. The Nation as 'Inherent Oneness'.
Golwalkar not merely advocated the merging of the individual under/within the Hindu
Nation, and the adoration of the Hindu Nation as the 'Living God'. He was also convinced
that the oneness that links the people of the Hindu Nation (community) together will be the
natural outcome: 'The whole of our people should be reinstalled as the living God in our
hearts ... Let us revive that pure spirit of oneness [i.e. what Golwalkar refers to earlier as the
'Race Spirit'] born out of the realisation that we are all children of this great and sacred
motherland Bharat Mata' (Golwalkar, 1986: 116). As children of this 'sacred motherland'
the people of the Hindu Nation have an ingrained unity and spirit of identity that ties them
together. Golwalkar sought to pursuade the people that it was their duty born with their
birth (sahaja karma) to recognise this, to 'realise' the truth of this, and then to respond
with complete devotion to uphold, strengthen and defend it against all adversaries. Again
Golwalkar comments:
... we as a people bound together by ties of blood and history, remain one and whole ... [therefore]
Hindu society, whole and integrated, should forever be the single point of devotion for all of us. No
other consideration whether of caste, sect, language, province or party should be allowed to come in
the way of that single-minded devotion (ibid, pi18). [He goes as far as to say that] ' ...those who do
not love Rama, i.e., the object of devotion, and who come to us as an obstacle must be considered as
ten million times an enemy, though they may be extremely near and dear to us. (ibid, p 119)
According to Golwalkar the Hindu Nation is bound together through ties of cultural unity.
That societal unity, that 'inherent oneness' established over thousands of years existed in
'Bharat as one nation' (Kohli, 1993:31) must be 'reborn' in such a way that the Hindu
people, now realised as the 'Hindu Nation' find renewed identity in the community, in
their culture and in their way of life..
62
Chapter 3
d.
The Nation in Opposition to 'Threatening Others'
A large part of Golwalkar's discourse is directed against/towards those he considered the

enemies of the Hindu Nation, or what Jaffrelot calls the 'Threatening Others' (1999:11),
and the need for the Hindu Community to rise up out of the weakness into which they have
allowed themselves to fall. This was most evident in his earlier work We which was written
(1938) at a time when he was beginning to take a greater leadership role in the RSS, and
the RSS itself was beginning to assert itself in a much greater way. More especially, it was
written before partition and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and the resulting
persecution of Golwalkar and the RSS. In this light a couple of well-known passages are
well-worth quoting:
In an nutshell we may say that in this land of ours we have lived for God knows how long, a great
Nation of the grandest culture, that though, for the last thousand years or less, the land has been
infested with murderous bands of despoilers in various parts, the Nation has not been conquered, far
less subjugated; that through all these years it has engaged in a terrible struggle to free the land of
this pest... In short, our history is the story of flourishing Hindu National life for thousands of years
and then of a long and unflinching war continuing for the last ten centuries, which has not yet come
to a decisive close. And when we understand our history, thus rightly, we find ourselves not the
degenerate, down-trodden uncivilized slaves that we are taught to believe that we are today, but a
Nation, a free Nation of illustrious heroes, fighting the forces of destruction for the last thousand
years and determined to carry on this struggle to the bitter end with ever increasing zeal and
unflagging national ardour. And Race spirit calls, National consciousness blazes forth and we
Hindus rally to the Hindu standard, the Bhagwa Diwaja lO , set our teeth in grim determination to
wipe out the opposing forces (Golwalkar, 1949: 117-118).
And again:
Thus, applying the modern understanding of 'Nation' to our present conditions, the conclusion is
unquestionably forced upon us that in this country, Hindusthan, the Hindu race, with its Hindu
religion, Hindu culture, Hindu language...complete the natural Nation concept, that in fine,
Hindusthan exists and must needs to exist the ancient Hindu nation and nought else but the Hindu
Nation. All those not belonging to the nation i.e. Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language,
naturally fall out of the pale of real 'National' life (ibid, p52)
10 The Bhagwa Diwaja or Bhagawa Dhwaj is the object of worship for members of the RSS. Referred to also
as the 'guru', Golwalkar comments, 'It is in keeping with that sublime cultural tradition that the Sangh has
kept before itself neither an individual nor a book as its authority but Bhagawa Dhwaj, the glowing symbol of
all that is good and great in our national life, and through that, is striving for the inculcation of pure devotion
to the nation as a whole.' (Golwalkar, 1996:396).
63
Chapter 3
And finally:
...There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves into the
national race and adopt its culture, or to live at the sweet will of the national race. That is the only
logical and correct solution. That alone keeps the national life healthy and undisturbed. That alone
keeps the Nation safe from danger of a cancer developing into the body politics and of the creation
of a state within the state.
From this standpoint, sanctioned the experience of the shrewd old nations, the non-Hindu peoples in
Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in
reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race and
culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this
land and its age-long traditions but must also cultivate the attitude of love and devotion instead - in
one word they, must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the
Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not
even citizens rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old
nation, and let us deal, as old nations ought to deal, with the foreign races, which have chosen to live
in our country. (ibid, p56)
.
With strongly romanticist overtones Golwalkar claims for the Hindu Nation not only rights
to the geography of Hindusthan but also to the highest and purest of civilisations
the
Hindu civilisation. What then follows is a flowery piece of oratory intermingled with
vicious jibes against non-Hindu peoples. His use of the expression 'except for the last
thousand years or less' is a direct reference to Muslim rule in the sub-continent which we
have previously noted began about a thousand years ago. That event, for Golwalkar and
other Hindu nationalists, was the beginning of the decline of the Hindu Nation, which
apparently beforehand was virile, pure and united. It is clear from these passages, and he
makes it abundantly clear in his later writings, that the arch-enemies of the Hindu Nation
are primarily the Muslims with the Christians (and Communists) not far behind (e.g.
Golwalkar, 1996:124-132, 177-201).
While claiming that he is not against God being called by different names ('He cannot be a
Hindu who is intolerant of other faiths' - ibid, p125) Golwalkar states that the problem is
of a different nature. The critical issue here 'is whether THEY [Muslims and Christians]
remember that they are children of the soil' (ibid, p125). He claims that this is not the case
but that with conversion in their faith [to the foreign religion] there has also been,a change
in attitude, 'gone is the spirit of love and devotion for the nation' (ibid), that devotion,
which is the realisation of 'oneness', and which is so essential for the strengthening and
stability [identity] of the Hindu Nation. They are no longer emotionally bonded with the
Hindu Nation. Further, their feelings of identification have now transferred to the
'enemies' of the Hindu Nation, Islam and Christianityll. As members of foreign (nonII Andersen and Damle make the point that a repeated characteristic 'in belief systems is the identification of
hostile forces which plot against the nation and which are disruptive strains in the country. These disruptive
64
Chap~er
Indic) religions those who claim to be Muslims and Christians now look to foreign lands as
their holy places (Palestine, Arabia), they name themselves after foreign peoples (i.e.
Arabs, Europeans), they speak foreign languages (Urdu, English) and have cut themselves
off from their' ancestral national moorings', merging themselves with the aggressors (ibid,
p126). These people have not only changed their faith but their national identity and are
guilty of treason by abandoning their mother-nation (ibid). Andersen and Damle point out
that it is not only the Muslim and Christian religions that are seen as a threat (because they
promote values seen to result in the denationalisation of those who embrace them) but also
the 'westernized' [Hindu] elite who champion the cause of capitalism, socialism, or
communism as solutions for Indian development (1987:72). They further state, that it is
because of the 'community orientation' of Christianity, and not simply the dogma itself,
that Christians are distanced from the larger [Hindu] nation or, in their own words,
'Because Christians are culturally different, they have separated themselves from the
"national soul''' (Ibid, p73). This community or 'national' orientation is a similar problem
with Muslims but with them the problem is far greater because of the sheer size of the
Muslim community (about 12% of the population - post-partition). Using Golwalkar's
tenus - adherence to another religion is akin to adherence to another culture that in tum
means adherence to another 'nation'. Other religions (cultures/religions) are stigmatised
because they represent both lower (lesser) fonus of civilisation and promote divided
loyalty.
The boundaries, therefore, which distinguish the 'Threatening Others' from the Hindu
Nation can be delineated by the five 'unities' that Golwalkar proposed. Put simply, the
person who denies one or all of the five 'unities' is the 'enemy'. Jaffrelot comments that
Golwalkar's definition of the Hindu Nation is more closed than Savarkar's (1999:56). For
Golwalkar, Hindus are identified with the Hindu Nation and the quality of 'being' a
member of the Hindu Nation is not so much something that is passed down through genes
(race) as it is through cultural tradition. These foreign enemies or mlecchas must realise
that to reside in Hindusthan they must willingly and knowingly be relegated to a
subordinate position under the Hindu Nation, stripped even of citizen's rights (see above
quote) 12. With the policies of Nazi Germany at the forefront of news in the late 1930s
forces are often identified with particular social groups, who are usually defined as different, united and
powerful' - 1987:72.
12 In a different place Golwalkar states that for a 'foreign~ race to claim any kind of special treatment at the
hands of the [Hindu] Nation it should not be 'an upstart, a new, voluntary settlement, and it should not be
65
Chapter 3
Golwalkar made the following infamous comment in his earlier work We or our
Nationhood Defined (1938), and the one most quoted against him, on possible methods to
deal with problem minorities: 'To keep the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany
shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride
at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible
it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one
united whole, a good lesson for use in Hindusthan to learn and profit' (italics mine 1949:43).
Elst comments that this quote reflects a view that Golwalkar later repudiated, and in fact
later disowned even to the point of withdrawing from future circulation (Elst,
2001b:82,92)13. He claims that present critics of the Hindutva movement and the RSS keep
quoting from it when in fact it is a view no longer held either by Golwalkar until his death
or the present RSS leadership. It certainly reflects a very extreme fascist type of view. It is
true to say however, that a cursory view of Golwalkar's wider writings does show that he
leans more toward a subordinate strategy for the minority communities rather than the
extennination method that Hitler and the Nazis employed toward the Jews and other
minority communities residing in Gennan controlled areas. It may be more appropriate to
quote his later 'sanitised' views reflecting the result of the persecution of the RSS and his
imprisonment following Gandhi's assassination (1948-1949), but also the political ground
realities that the RSS found themselves in a avowedly pluralistic and secular post-partition
India. Stating that there are different kinds of foreign dominations - political, economic,
cultural - Golwalkar goes on to say that it is 'our duty to call these our forlorn brothers
[those Hindus who have embraced Islam or Christianity], suffering under religious slavery
for centuries, back to their ancestral home' (1986: 128). In other words those who have
excluded themselves from the Hindu Nation can be assimilated, reintegrated or 'fused'
back into Hindu society and the Hindu way of life ('our dharma ') as lost brothers. The
goal is a kind of unity that includes characteristics typical of the foreign dominations he
mentioned earlier - political, economic, cultural and religious.
below 20% of the total population of the state.' (ibid, pp36-37). A convenient figure when one remembers
that the government population statistics are clear that Muslims make up 13%.
13 Though Elst himself gives no concrete proof to this effect.
66
Chapter 3
For Jaffrelot, Golwalkar's comments reflect another fonn of racism
14
not of a biological
kind (i.e. in the typical use of the word 'racism') but rather a 'racism of domination'
(1999:38). It is not the kind of 'racism of extermination' that Hitler employed towards the
Jews and other minority races (and which Golwalkar himself disclaims, Golwalkar 1996: 131) in order to maintain racial purity but rather a form of socio-cultural racism 15 that
places groups on a hierarchical scale reminiscent of the caste system where minority
(lower castes) were required to assimilate into society, but at a subordinate rank 16
reflecting principles indicative of 'Indian Traditional xenology' (1999:38, 56). The
discrimination that was to be exercised towards the mlecchas 17 was not on the basis of
racial characteristics but by whether they observed the cultural rules recommended by the
[Hindu] Dharma. Golwalkar is more explicit:
We must revive once again the parakrama-vad. For that, we should make it clear that the non-Hindu
who lives here has a rashtra dharma (national responsibility), a samaja dharma (duty to society), a
kula dharma (duty to ancestors), and only in his vyakti dharma (personal faith) he can choose any
path which satisfies his spiritual urge. If, even after fulfulling all those various duties in social life,
anybody says that he has studied Quran Sharif or the Bible and that way of worship strikes a
sympathetic chord in his heart, that he can pray better through that path of devotion, we have
absolutely no objection. Thus he has his choice in a portion of his individual life. For the rest, he
must be one with the national current. That is real assimilation. (1996: 130)
In this scenario, traditional Hindu tolerance is 'limited' tolerance. If a person accepts the
conditions of subordination and assimilation, under the Hindu Nation, they are tolerated.
They may hold religious beliefs different to that of the Hindu 18 (Indic) religion but it must
remain private or personal, all external indications must demonstrate unity (allegiance) or
'oneness' with the Hindu wider community. That is, allegiance to external Hindu culture is
equal to Indian nationalism, allegiance to any other external culture is anti-national.
Paradoxically this is a view contrary to the holistic view that Golwalkar holds of religion
and which is discussed in the next chapter. In other words, what Golwalkar allows for
Hinduism he refuses for those of other faiths. As a thinker and protagonist for the cause of
Hindu nationalism the goal for Golwalkar through his pursuasive communication of the
above was 'to install the territorial boundaries of the nation as inner mental boundaries in
the minds of its citizens' (italics mine - Hansen, 1999:30). If Golwalkar could make the
14 In a recent publication Elst objects to the way Jaffrelot and others use the term 'racism' in connection with
the ideas of Golwalkar and the RSS and believes that it is inappropriate and misleading (2000: 132ff, 295ft).
In the context of the discussion Jaffrelot also refers to this 'racism of domination' to Savarkar's ideas.
15 Jaffrelot here refers to the term used by Pandey - 'an upper-caste racism' (1999:57).
16 At least below the Brahmins.
17 Golwalkar defined mlecchas as 'those who do not subscribe to the social laws dictated by the Hindu
Religion and Culture'. (Jaffrelot, 1999:56)
18 Jaffrelot explains that the use of the term 'Hindu' is used less frequently than rashtriya ('national') or
Bharatiya ('this was the adjectival form of Bharat, the legendary name of the first Aryan who unified the
67
Chapter 3
majority Hindu population think like he was thinking (a kind of indoctrination) he would
be well on his way to achieving his ultimate objectives - the total transformation of society
patterned in his definition of Indian Hindu nationalism 19.
CONCLUSION
Much of Maududi and Golwalkars' s views on community identification were born out of
the context of pre-partition India and the scramble to promote viable alternatives,
competing 'nationalisms', to British Rule. Both Maududi and Golwalkar attempted to
promote the acceptance of their vie\vpoints (ideas) particularly within their religious
communities. Both were deeply convinced that their viewpoints should be the accepted
viewpoint of their communities and worked toward that goal. Maududi' s fellow religionists
either advocated accommodation with the general Indian nationalist movement,
accommodation with the British, or a separatist ideology claiming a nation of their own.
Maududi opposed all nationalisms claiming Islam was anti-nationalism and pro-[Islamic]
Internationalism. Golwalkar's fellow religionists primarily supported accommodation with
all minority communities. Golwalkar advocated the primacy of the Hindu community over
and against all other communities. In this Golwalkar and Maududi were of one mind. For
theirs was an 'accommodation of domination' - of the Muslim community and its shariats
over non-believers (kafirs) and of the Hindu Nation and its cultural traditions and rules
over non-Hindus (mlecchas). Allegiance was demanded by both.. For Maududi, consistent
with his presuppositions regarding the sovereignty of God, that allegiance ('obedience
context') must be to Allah and the shariats above all other claimants including the nation
as a sovereign entity. He concluded that the worship of the nation as God was the natural
consequences of any form of nationalism and that this was blasphemous and idolatrous. In
that sense, that the nation should be worshipped as God, Golwalkar agreed. He claimed
that one's allegiance ('obedience context') must be to the Hindu Nation who is to be
adored as the 'Living God' in a form of 'new age' Hindu religion. All other
religiolis/cultural-linguistic/social/familial attachments must be subservient to this end. The
Muslim community, for
Maududi~
was transterritorial and transcultural. It was a global
subcontinent and, by extension, the term used to designate India in Sanskrit and Hindi texts '). It implies the
belief that Hindu culture contains within itself the essence or purity of Indian idePtity. (1999:57)
19 For anybody who has read, studied or experienced the extraordinary events leading up to and surrounding
the demolition of the Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya this was a painfully clear objective and terrifying
reality that the RSS and its affiliates achieved (however seemingly temporarily) among the general Hindu
populace, resulting, in this case in a communal 'hatred' and xenophobia against the Muslim community.
68
Chapter 3
Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'
community that was bound together by chords of common faith, common practices and
common authority. Golwalkar claimed the Hindu Nation was bound by a broad but limited
territoriality (from 'hoary ages'), bound by the geography of the subcontinent but bigger
than present day India. It was not transcultural though. This community had clear cultural
boundaries, at least externally - Hindu cultural boundaries.
Another difference between the two was that Maududi was set against the ideas of nation
and nationalism because he believed they were secular, western European concepts and
had no place in the formation or identity for the Muslim community, in India or anywhere
else in the world. Golwalkar, as did Savarkar before him, willingly adopted these modern
western formulations in an attempt to construct the Hindu Nation and justify its primacy in
all things national.
Ideas about religion and the society/state are founded on pre-suppositions. The purpose for
these opening chapters is to lay bare some of those presuppositions so that we may be able
to more fully appreciate what were their broader consequences. The first chapter provided
the overall context out of which Maududi and Golwalkar lived and developed their ideas.
The second chapter looked at the question of identity in terms of the individual - Who am I
[as a Muslim/Hindu]? - as well as the individuals place in the process of the transformation
of society. This third chapter has focused on the broader questions of identity - Who are
we [as a community]? And, who is not 'we', that is, those 'threatening others'? As we
considered Maududi'sand Golwalkar's answers to these questions we are once again faced
with the convergence/divergence factors that we came across in the previous chapter. They
were both concerned with the need to define the boundaries that set apart their respective
communities from those who were not included. These boundaries then became division
factors, not only in terms of 'us against them' but more especially as 'us over them'. They
both sought to identify 'allegiance' factors that bound their members to one another and
defined how the community should relate to the 'others', and how the 'others' should
relate to them. Their divergence is obviously in the specific answers to these questions as
outlined above. The ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar about how the specifics of this 'intercommunity' relationship is understood in the functioning of the society/state, is discussed
in the fifth chapter of the thesis.
Hindu and Muslim neighbours/communities who/which had lived side by side in reasonable peace
'overnight' became enemies.
69
Chapter 4
CHAPTER FOUR
THE QUESTION OF SECULARISM - HOW DID MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR
INTERACT WITH THE IDEA OF SECULARISM AND HOW WAS IT REFLECTED
IN THEIR IDEAS ON SOCIETY?
Maududi and Golwalkar were both confronted with the question of secularism. Secularism as
the dominant philosophy in Western society was intimately related to colonial history as well
as to the newly emerging nationalist movements that were springing up all around the world. It
was therefore a critical idea with which Maududi and Golwalkar had to come to grips as they
formulated their own viewpoints in the light of the emergence of an independent India,
especially as it related to their respective communities. More importantly, with respect to this
thesis, the answers to the isspes that secularism raised are crucial in terms of how Maududi
and Golwalkar viewed the relationship between religion and society.
There were two primary issues raised by secularism, as far as Maududi and Golwalkar were
concerned. The first was the idea that there is an undercurrent of antagonism to religion (an
anti-religious bent) in its thinking seen in the need to separate religion (theistic ideas) from
mainstream society. 1 The second, following on from this, is that once religion has been
separated from society as a whole it should remain in the individual domain. Religion is to be
a purely personal and private matter. The other spheres of society must function separately
from religion and without the interference of religious ideas or elements.
I.
Maududi and Secularism
A. Critique of Western, secular civilisation

Maududi outlined the growth and development of secularism in Western society. He saw
secularism as a reaction against the Christian church and the role of the church in Western
society. In particular, Maududi charts this reaction as a result of the injunctions that early
Christian scholastics placed on religion as a consequence of the rigid acceptance of Greek
70
.z
Chapter 4
philosophy and science. Developing scientific findings often contradicted the views
traditionally held by the church resulting in fierce opposition. Ultimately the church lost out.
The ideas of the enlightenment coupled with modem scientific research became the bedrock of
secular thinking that became the predominant philosophy that governed Western society. The
consequence of this conflict with the church establishment was to sow seeds of distrust and
antagonism towards not only the church but to religion as a whole, ultimately leading to the
construction of a system (world-view of life and society) that was established on the ideas of
atheism and materialism - totally devoid of the theistic idea. At best religion was restricted to
the level of personal beliefs and actions of individuals while the secular idea transformed the
whole of society in its image, moving from the sphere of mere learning to include such areas
as politics, economics, public morality and the social system. In his own words, the 'new
civilization was permeated with dei-phobia and a secular non-religious mentality got rooted
into its innermost being.. .ignoring Allah (God) and life after death' (Maududi, 1991 :9, 15).
This Godless secular system was then imposed on Indian [Muslim] society. The acceptance of
their [Secular, British and European] economic system became the only way for people to live
and grow undermining the haram livelihood and slowly blurring the distinction between haram
(forbidden) and halal (permissible) from the minds of Muslims, many of whom lost their faith
in the teachings of Islam. The same occurred in the area of law. Laws were imposed that
significantly changed the social and cultural system that had been established by Islam.
When the Brutish rulers had abrogated all those Shari'ah (Islamic) laws which were in force in the
country and implemented their own law instead, it did not merely mean that one law had been replaced
by another. It meant a cancellation mark had been scratched across one system of morality and culture
and the foundations of another moral and social system had been laid ...They even shook our basic belief
that Allah alone has the authority to make laws ...,it is the work of the legislature... ' (1991: 18)
But it was not only in such distinct spheres such as law and economics that Maududi took
issue. The social and cultural effects were equally destructive, corrupting the morals and ways
of living especially among the upper and educated middle classes who embraced these ideas.
This was evident in such things as the acceptance of co-education and the fact that women
openly danced, drank wine and acted in movies. What was worse for Maududi was that many
of these same Muslims would on the one hand claim that 'Islam was a complete system of
I This was certainly anti-religious as far as Maududi and Golwalkar were concerned. As we will see, religion for
both these men necessitated an unbroken link between religion and the rest of society. To suggest otherwise is to
imply 'anti-religious' thinking.
71
Chapter 4
life' and on the either hand they would prove by their behaviour that Islam was really only a
private affair. It was in this context, as mentioned in chapter one, that Maududi addressed
much of his polemic against hypocrisy and the 'false' or 'partial' Muslims. It was these
Muslims, according to Maududi, who had totally imbibed the secular philosophy, ideologies
and actions of the West and then tried to refashion Islam in that image. For Maududi it did not
really matter which kind of political system came out of Europe, be it Capitalism,
Communism or Fascism, their underlying secular philosophy was the same:
They all have one cultural concept in common: there mayor may not be a God, but man is under no
obligation to obey Him...is in no need of guidance from Him, is not answerable for his deeds before
Him: there is no life after this life in which man's worldly deeds will bear fruit. Man is totally
independent and has to find his way in light of his own knowledge, experience and needs and that the
purpose of life is prosperity in the life lived in this world. (1991 :27)
In saying this Maududi was not negating the progress or innovations that modern science had
discovered. Far from it. His diatribe was against the complete unadulterated acceptance of
both the results and the underlying presuppositions that came with it and the inability of
Muslims, especially the ulama, to use the Islamic tools (itjihadl available to them 'to interpret
the principles and laws of Islam in the light of changing situations' (1992:37). As mentioned
earlier, by appealing to the right to utilise itjihad Maududi conveniently bi-passed the ulama,
the traditional interpreters of Islam, whom he felt had 'become stuck in the mud' of tradition
and their own opinions and deductions, and freed him to develop a detailed blue-print for
A study of itjihad is worthwhile for understanding how Maududi went about interpreting the Qur 'an and the
Sunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad that have been handed down) to justify his personal discourse
on what Islamic society should look like. For the purposes of this thesis I will relegate it to a brief footnote. The
Qur 'an and the Sunnah while conveying many truths falls short of describing in detail every situation and
problem faced by humankind in all their varied cultural and historical circumstances. In this connection Charles
Adams lists three concerns: (I) The fact that the basic sources are silent on many matters of concern to the
Muslims and must be supplemented by some other principle of authority; (2) The fact that in addition to the their
clear commands the basic sources have a number of others, the exact meaning of which is doubtful and require
interpretation; and (3) The fact that even the clear commands must be understood in the light of whatever
historical circumstances may prevail. (1966:386). As a result itjihad could be applied. Nadar Saiedi comments on
itjihad that it 'is the rational deduction of new decrees in accordance with the spirit of Islam [i.e. not independent
of the shariah} and the precepts of reason. Mutjahid is the Muslim learned scholar who is supposed to be
knowledgeable enough to engage in the act of itjihad. Itjihad was extremely important for developing the five
legal schools between the eighth and eleventh centuries. After the eleventh century the gates of itjihad were
closed' (1986: 180). Maududi, along with many modernists, believed that it was time to 'reopen the gates of
itjihad' claiming that the present circumstances required the need for personal judgement on matters not
specifically covered either in the original sources or by the five legal schools and for which the present ulama
were unable to effectively address. Maududi asserted the right, indeed put himself forward as a credible
candidate, to exercise reason or one's own personal taffaquh (legal deduction) in deciding what the clear
commands of God should mean (Adams, 1966:386). [For a detailed explanation of how itjihad was to function
and the kind of person who could exercise it see Maududi, 1986:72-92.]
72
2
Chapter 4
Islam in the modem context. In this respect, Adams points out, Maududi is in some ways
closer to the modernists he vehemently opposes than the conservative ulama (1966:394)3.
B. Maududi' s Islamic Response
The battle for Maududi was an ideological one. From the Islamic viewpoint the
presuppositions that underlay secularism were all wrong.
1. God as Creator, Lord and Ruler
According to Maududi, God (Allah) is either Creator, Lord and Ruler or He is not. If He is not,
then there is no need even of a private connection in which an individual should practise his
religious beliefs. However, if it is yes, then the private is out and religion must influence the
totality of life (1991 :50). For Maududi the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes'. Therefore to
relegate God to a private domain is nothing short of independence, arrogance, rebellion and
insanity.4 Besides, he continues, there is really no such thing as a private area of society. Man
is a social being and lives life in relationship to other people, be it the family or the greater
society. For Maududi the secular view of life inevitably leads to individual, class, national and
racial selfishness and division which he saw Islam transcending. If one therefore, accepts that
God is Creator, Lord and Ruler, then one cannot accept either these divisions or the antireligion/non-religion or irreligiousness inherent in the idea of secularism. The great evil of
secularism, states Maududi, is that to accept it, is to accept the overlordship of something
other than Allah (1991:69).
2. The Sovereignty of God
Because God is Sovereign the Qur 'an demands that humankind acknowledge that sovereignty
in all areas of life whether it be moral, social, economic, cultural or political. Maududi' s point
here, comments Adams, is that 'to mark out certain areas of life as belonging to God and
others to Caesar would be to deny divine sovereignty over the whole. As he [Maududi] said at
For a further comparison on Maududi's relationship with the conservative ulama and the modernists see Adams,
1966:384-388,394-397.
4 And is liable to the charge of being guilty of kafr - conducting ones life in ways other than that prescribed in
Islam or imitating the ways of other people (see Maududi, 1997:93-94; also comments in chapter two of this
thesis).
73
3
Chapter 4
one point: "The shari iah is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social ordernothing superfluous and nothing lacking...his ultimate objective must be transfonnation of the
social order. The overarching concern is the clear implication of his notion of divine
sovereignty'" (1966:388). It impacts not only the total life of individuals but of society as a
whole. Therefore the implementation of God's sovereignty in the affairs of humankind must
be total. No person, or system of philosophy, therefore, has the right to claim sovereignty to
make decisions or impose laws or structures in society or even to answer the questions of the
existence of life.
Hence it is neither for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence nor to present the limits in our
worldly authority, nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right vests only in God
who created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided all material provisions for
our use. The principle of the Unity of God altogether negates the concept of the legal and political
sovereignty of human beings, individually or collectively. Nothing can claim sovereignty be it a human
being, a class, or a group of people, [or a philosophy of life constructed by man such as secularism] or
even the human race as a whole. God alone is sovereign and His commandments are the law of Islam.
(Maududi quoted in Choueiri, 1997:111)
There was no such thing as half-hearted belief and practice for Muslims as far as Maududi was
concerned. Islam's claim was over all of life, because God's sovereignty stretches over all of
life. A response of a Muslim must be one of complete obedience and submission to that claim.
This was not simply Maududi's opinion, but Allah's commandment to be obeyed as Sovereign
of the Universe.
In this Maududi also had problems with secular democracy because Western secular
democracy has as its foundation the concept of the 'sovereignty of the people'. In this system
absolute powers of legislation and determination of values and of the nonns of behaviour rest
in the hands of the people, and therefore, the right to make laws falls also in their rightful
preview. Maududi repudiated this, stating that this is the very antithesis of Islam as it
challenges the very core Islamic understanding that God alone is sovereign and is the One who
claims not only spiritual but also legal and political authority.
3. The Status of Man
Maududi states that the major mistake which secular philosophies have made in relation to
ethics and moral values is that their starting point is fundamentally wrong. The question is not
'what is the criterion of right and wrong for the purposes of human conduct and what is the
74
Chapter 4
good for the realization of which man should direct his efforts?'(which comes much later) but
rather, 'what is the status and position of man in the universe?' (l996c: 26). Humankind's
status can be summed up in two main words, that of 'abd (God's servant and slave) and
khilafat-ul-AUah or khilafatu 'Uah fi'l-arz (Allah's deputy and vicegerent on earth). The
implications for this are profound. If all of humankind are the slaves of God, then all things,
including humankind belong to God and have no rights, except that of obedience to their
master - Allah. Humankind are not the masters, but rather the agents or deputies of God,
limited in power and authority. It follows that as vicegerents the only moral course open is to
fulfil what has been assigned to them.
The code of conduct is not to be formulated by man, he has to take it from God and follow it. The test
set by God is not confined to anyone aspect of life or to any particular branch of human activity but
extends to all aspects oflife and all spheres ofaction enlarges the full field ofmorality and makes it coextensive with life. (l996c: 32 - italics mine).
Because humans are but mere servants and agents of Allah it is incumbent on humanity to seek
the permeation of all of life with God-fullness (taqwa - God-consciousness, see Ahmad,
1991 :488) not Godlessness. It is diametrically opposite to the secular ideal. There is no
separation of religion and society. Religion (Islam) must necessarily transform society in its
image and not vice versa.
4. The idea of deen or the Islamic holistic approach to life
In Maududi' s six volume commentary on the Qur 'an, Tajhim al Qur 'an, he painstakingly
'explicates and interprets' the verses of the Qur 'an that have political and legal implications.
In doing so he sought to clarify for Muslims what Allah's guidance was in all the fields of life
be it constitutional, social, civil, criminal, commercial or international law (Ahmad,
1991 :464). Fundamentally Maududi was saying that Islam is not only competent to address
life issues but it is the final arbiter as to how life should be lived in all its varied and
multifaceted aspects. The core concept, Ahmad comments, on which Maududi< built his
movement (the Jamaat-I-Islami) for the total transformation of society was iqamat-i-deen,
literally 'the establishment of religion, or the complete subordination of civil society and the
state under the divine law as revealed in the Qur 'an and practised by the Prophet. The way of
life (al-Deen) in Islam is not a private affair. Neither can al-Deen be limited to a few sets of
75
Chapter 4
beliefs and rituals to be performed or adhered t0 5 At one point in his commentary, Maududi
translates the word deen as law and then writes,
This use of the word categorically refutes the view of those who believe that a prophet's message is
principally aimed at ensuring worship of the one true God, adherence to a set of beliefs, observance of a
few rituals. This also refutes the views of those who think that deen has nothing to do with culture,
politics, economics, legal, judicial, and other matters pertaining to this world. (in Ahmad, 1991 :487)
In other words, Maududi was passionately convinced that the correct Islamic approach to life
was a holistic one. Because it is a system and not merely a sum of the parts, the elements that
make up Islam cannot be separated from one another. A true Muslim is one whq actively seeks
to apply these truths to their lives individually and corporately. For Maududi and his fellow
Muslim fundamentalists, this is ultimately where the conflict is centred between Islam and
secularism. As one well-known scholar of Islamic fundamentalism has so incisively stated:
'At a latent level what the fundamentalists have grasped is the holistic challenge of
nationalism [i.e. with secularism as its philosophical basis] to the holistic claims of Islam'
(Lawrence, 1989:200). It is a battle between competing holistic world-views that brook no
rivals.
The idea that Islam encompasses every sphere of society is not original to Maududi, nor that
there should be no separation of religion and the state. However what Maududi did, perhaps
more than any other Muslim thinker, was to 'offer a set of clear and well-argued definitions of
key Islamic concepts within a coherently conceived framework and then to build a systematic
theory of Islamic society and the Islamic state on the basis of these concepts' (Ahmad,
1991 :487). What also set Maududi apart from others was his ability to authoritatively and
passionately articulate his thinking on Islamism in all its varied aspects.
It is not surprising then, given Maududi's ideas on the Islamic holistic approach to life, that
once established in Pakistan, he actively sought to speak to and influence all aspects of
Pakistan life. He was instrumental in pushing forward the idea that the new constitution of
Pakistan (following partition) should be an Islamic one and not one based on secular ideas. He
wrote,
5 See also Lawrence, 1989:215 for more general comments on the Islamic fundamentalist refusal to separate the
private/public aspects of society.
76
Chapter 4
If, now, after all these precious sacrifices [the suffering of partition] we fail to achieve the real and
ultimate objective of making Islam a practical, social, political and constitutional reality- a live force to
fashion all facets of our life, our entire struggle and all our sacrifices become futile and meaningless.
Indeed, if instead of an Islamic, a secular and Godless constitution was to be introduced, and if instead
of the Islamic Shari 'ah, the British Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes had to be enforced, what was
the sense in all this struggle for a separate homeland? We could have them without that (1986:43).
Likewise, it is not surprising that once established in Pakistan society, the organisation that
Maududi founded, the lamaat-i-Islami, sponsored a large array of 'daughter' organisations that
became involved in many different aspects of society, seeking to influence those areas from
their understanding of what the correct Islamic perspective was. The Jamaat-i-Islami
sponsored trade unions, labour and student organisations; professional organisations of
doctors, engineers, teachers, accountants, journalists, and writers who had their own
independent memberships not included in the numbers of those considered officially a part of
the parent organisation (Ahmad, 1991 :492). Of these the student body, the Islami Jamiat-iTalaba (UT), was the most important and became a vital source of recruiting students,
controlling educational institutions and organising public protests. 6
II. Golwalkar and Secularism
A. A Critique of Western Secularism
Golwalkar addressed Western secularism fairly circumspectly. It mostly took the form of
contrast between the traditional Hindu (Indian) approach to religion and culture and the ideas
that secularism bred. The most direct reference to 'Western' secularism was in Bunch of
Thoughts, where he addressed the accusation that the concept of Hindu Rashtra was against
'secularism' (1996:1620). He comments that the notion of 'secularism' developed in the West
and that it had no relevance to India. He saw secularism as the outcome of conflict between
European kings and the Church, with the Pope as the pinnacle of authority. The successful
revolt against this theocratic hegemony of the Church led to the growth of 'secular states'
versus 'theocratic states'. The latter are characterised as a religious state intolerant of all other
faiths. According to Golwalkar
ther~
had never been a time in the history of [Hindu] India
where such intolerance had taken place.
77
Chapter 4
Another significant conunent that Golwalkar made in relation to religion and the West is that
culture has been separated from religion in Western Christian countries. Religion in these
countries has been relegated [by secularism] to a mere matter of form, 'a toy luxury to play
with', 'a few opinions dogmatically forced down the throats of one and all, without
consideration for individual aptitudes or the fact that the teachings therein do not accord with
modem [scientific] knowledge' (1947:27, 29). At most, religion had become nothing more
than 'an attempt to establish a relationship between the individual and God, for the spiritual
benefit of the former.' The natural consequence for this was that religion had no place in the
realm of politics and religion could be clearly distinguishable from the prevailing culture.
Further, in these Western nations it was culture and not religion that dominated society and
was most important. Christianity, according to Golwalkar had made no major inroads into
moulding the minds [world-view?] of the people but was merely an ornament worn for
decoration and show. As a result, even in India, there was an inclination to affirm that religion
is an individual issue and has no place in public and political life. Originating from the
Christian West ('who have ...no religion worth its name', 1947:29) these ideas promoted the
thinking that religion is merely concerned with matters that are 'other-worldly, and should, so
say the sceptics (secularists), have no place in 'this-worldly' affairs. Religion is therefore,
according to those who hold this view, an issue to be solved by each person in his\her own
private individual way.
Hansen further points out that Golwalkar asserted that the materialistic (secular) West had
failed to provide happiness to people because it unduly stressed [to the exclusion of other
concerns] strife, conflict, competition, and individual enjoyment and hedonism (1999:81).
B. Hindu Religion, Culture and History versus 'Secular ideals'
This next section deals with Golwalkar's response to the ideas and implications that he
believed secularism raised. Golwalkar's response was clearly a response of contrast to
'secularism,7. Neither was 'secularism' as defined by West, a part of the continuum of Indian
Ahmad, 1991 :492-493. Ahmad further contends that 'the IJT has developed into the largest, and most
successful student movement not only in Pakistan but in the entire Islamic world'.
7 At least 'secularism' as he saw it and as described in the previous section.
78
Chapter 4
history nor was it reflected in traditional Hindu (Indian/national) ideas of society and the
relationship that religion was to have with society.
1. Religion and Culture
Golwalkar emphatically stated that in relation to Hindusthan there is no separation between

religion and culture. The two are so closely linked as to be indistinguishable:
Where religion forms the very life-breath of a people, where it governs every action of the individual as
well as the society as a whole, where in short, it fOTIns the only incentive to all action, worldly and
spiritual, it is difficult to distinguish the two factors clearly. They become one, as it were. Culture being
the cumulative affect of age-long customs, traditions, historical and other conditions and most
particularly of religious beliefs and their attendant philosophy), where there is such a philosophy) on the
Social mind, creating the peculiar Race spirit. ..it is plainly a result mainly of that religion and
philosophy, which controls the social life and shapes it, generation after generation, planting on the Race
consciousness its own particular stamp (1947:27).
Religion as the 'life-breath' of society, or as the 'soul', is an all-absorbing entity that pervades
and is 'eternally woven' into culture. The two cannot be de-linked. Golwalkar continued:
With us every action in life, individual, social, or political, is a command of Religion. We make war or
peace, engage in arts and crafts, amass wealth and give it away, indeed we are born and we die - all in
accord with religious injunctions. Naturally, therefore, we are what our great Religion has made
us ... culture is but a bi-product of our all~comprehensive Religion, a part of its body and not
distinguished from it (1947:28).
In his view religion cannot be seen as a purely individual or private matter. There cannot be a
separation between religion and public life, or between religion and political life. To establish
a relationship with God, or to gain some kind of spiritual benefit from it is but a small part of
religion, not its end. It regulates society in all its functions. Indeed more than that, religion is
also the means by which the whole of society is raised 'from the material, through to the moral
to the spiritual plane' (1947:29,30) and despite the 'degenerating contact with the debased
"civilizations'" of the Muslims and the Europeans the Hindu religion has continued to evolve
in its greatness.
Golwalkar did not view society as separate segments or domains. Each part was intimately
linked with the other.
79
Chapter 4
2. Religion as Dharma
When Golwalkar speaks of religion and culture he utilises the Sanskrit words dharma and
sanskriti. In Bunch of Thoughts Golwalkar speaks of those who opposed his use of these terms
when speaking of the public and political spheres of life. 'Why do you bring religion into
politics?' they questioned. Golwalkar claimed that people said this because they had a
misunderstanding of what he meant by dharma, confusing it with what he referred to as the
Western concept of religion. He saw religion in the West as a dogmatic idea of religion and
the control of the state by the church (1996:72). For him the difference between what he
means by dharma and the Western idea of religion was diametrically opposite. For him,
dharma or spirituality as he puts it, is not a dogma, a set of rigid beliefs, but rather an
understanding of the totality of life. It is not a distinct sphere of national life such as
economics and politics, but rather 'a comprehensive vision of life that should inform and
elevate and correlate all fields of society for the fulfilment of human life in all its facets'
(1996:72). It is the glue that holds society together, the living principles that, when adhered to,
maintains society in a harmonious oneness.
Golwalkar saw the goal of secularism in primarily materialistic terms, where the energy of
human society is taken up in satisfying physical desires and to raising the standard of life
(measured in material terms). He saw this as an unfulfilled never-ending cycle that leads to
strife, competition, unhappiness etc. For Golwalkar, this is a direct result of the fruit of
secularism where people have focused on the economic and political arenas to the negation of
the roots of spirituality (dharma) that have underpinned traditional Hindu society. According
to Golwalkar it is dharma alone that is able to keep the human mind in check, and to nurture
the human soul to a place where peace and happiness are prevalent.
3. Chaturvidha Purushartha - The Complete Life-concept
In this light, Golwalkar harked back to 'the way things once were' when the complete lifeconcept of chaturvidha purushartha set apart the society of Hindusthan from other societies
(even to the point where other countries would bow down in veneration to the [Hindu] nation,
80
Chapter 4
or to use Golwalkar's romanticist terminology, which 'made our name shine bright on the
horizon of the world' (1996:47).8 He described chaturvidha purushartha as 'the harmonious
blending of artha and kama with the higher values of dharma and moksha' which were
simultaneously worked out on both the individual and national/societal levels. Golwalkar
stated that this 'fourfold achievement' made up of material happiness - artha (the amassing of
wealth) and kama (the satisfaction of physical desires) as well as dharma and moksha
(enlightenment, the end of the cycle ofre-births or as Golwalkar refers to it - God Realisation)
was the basis on which society was built. It is clear from this that in Golwalkar's view there
was no way that the 'anti-religion', or irreligiousness or the bi-passing of religion in society
could hold any place in (Hindu) national society. For him it was not merely that religion was
the life-breath of society or that through it every area of society was linked and integrated - it
gave life meaning and purpose. Dharma, when understood and lived out in all aspects of life
leads society to moksha - direct communion with God Himself. As people follow dharma the
other aspects of artha and kama will follow (1996:44).
In outlining his understanding of the Hindu (national) society Golwalkar obviously felt the
freedom and authority to reinterpret traditional concepts and ideas. Similar to his reformist
ideas regarding caste (see chapter two) Golwalkar gave new definition to the meaning of
Dharma. For Golwalkar dharma had a twofold meaning. Firstly, it is the 'proper rehabilitation
of man's mind' and secondly, it meant 'the adjustment of individuals for a harmonious
corporate existence, i.e. good social order to hold people together' (1996:44-45). The former
concerns the individual, where a person's mind must learn to develop self-restraint along with
certain other qualities
The second component relates primarily to the social level where
individuals must learn what it is to live in a complementary (harmonious) relationship with

one another. Dharma is that power which accomplishes the second component.
8 It is worth noting here that Golwalkar clearly has the comparison with Western secular society in mind and the
need for Indians (Hindus) to show once again the superiority of the Hindu way of life over and against the
Western society. He comments that this idea of chaturvidha purushartha is especially necessary because when
people do interact with other countries they tend to end up 'wallowing in physical desires' to a greater level than
the people living in those places do themselves (1996:47). Something for which Maududi also believed in
relation to the Muslim community and its relation to Western culture.
9Golwalkar comments that these can be identified in the various Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gila and
refers to these, without going into detail, as being the 'five yamas for the body and the five niyamas for the mind'
(1996:45).
81
Chapter 4
A combination of these two [components] ...shows that the establishment of dharma means the building
of an organised social life wherein each individual has realised his oneness with other is society and is
imbued with a spirit of sacrifice to make others' material life richer and happier, and develops spiritual
strength which leads to realisation of the ultimate Truth (1996:45).
The private and public spheres of life merge here, once again countering the idea that society,
in the secular sense, should be divided clearly into the private/public and secular/religious
domains. This 'blending', to use a Golwalkar expression, of the individual with the wider
society can also be looked at from another side. Just as society should be an integrated whole,
where each sphere of society is linked to each other through dharma so each individual should
be linked into and blended with the whole. He refers to the individual as that which
IS
'impermanent' or transient (adhruvam) and the nation or national life as that which is
'permanent' (dhruvam -1996:45, 118). The impermanent comes and goes but the permanent
remains. The ideal for Golwalkar is where the 'impermanent' individual is transformed (by the
personal application of dharma) as a means to attain the permanent
the social good or
strengthening of the nation (see Chapter 2 for a further description of this building and
revitalising of the 'ideal Hindu man'). The permanent, or the nation, takes precedence over the
individual. Where the impermanent, be it the individual in society, or politics as a part of
society, comes in the way of or weakens the permanent then it must be given up. 'Hindu
society whole and integrated', continued Golwalkar, 'should forever be the single point of
devotion' for all Hindus. Nothing should come in the way of maintaining and strengthening
that united integration whether it is caste, sect, language, province or [political] party
(1996:118).
4. Secularism as understood in the Indian Context
When the constitution of India was being formulated in the year or so after partition (19471949) there was a great debate as to whether the word 'secular' should be included in the final
written draft or no1. l0 The final conclusion was that though the word 'secular' was not to be
inserted ll it was understood, that, i~ the Indian context, 'secular' did not mean 'anti-religion'
or 'irreligion' but rather 'multi-religious' where 'there is equal respect of all religions' and
10 Full a fuller discussion on the debate with reference to the input of key leaders and the Constituent Assembly
see my unpublished paper, 'In what understanding of pluralism was the Constitution of India written?' (l999b).
th
11 It was later added, together with the word 'socialist' in the Preamble, in the 44 Amendment in 1976.
82
Chapter 4
'toleration' - where all religions are to be treated equally and without government bias or
partiality. So, Golwalkar comments, if the Indian understanding of secularism is not antireligion or where religion is not divorced from everyday life, and where every religion has the
opportunity to grow and where one religion is 'restrained from pouncing upon another' then
secularism is one with the spirit of Hindu Rashtra (1996: 163). 'In this country', Golwalkar
continued, 'the state was never tagged on to any particular faith. Relegating men of non-Hindu
faiths to second-class citizenship or levying of "Jezia" on them was unknown. All were
absolutely equal in the eyes of the law. Never did the king prostitute the state apparatus to
impose his personal religious dogmas' (Ibid). Apart from this negative aspect, the 'allcomprehensive' view of life embedded in the Hindu ruler made him respect and protect those
from all religious persuasions. In this respective, Golwalkar concludes, the Hindu ('our')
concept of the 'state' has always been 'secular'. For him this went far beyond the Western
concept of tolerance. All faiths are not merely 'tolerated' in the Hindu tradition but are
considered sacred (1996:537). One of the problems, however, that Golwalkar had with
secularism in post-independent India was that rather than being impartial to all religions it had
come to mean 'anti-Hindu' in practice where partiality had been exercised by the state in
relation to the minority religions as against the Hindu community.
Likewise, Golwalkar was against equating secularism with nationalism. 'Nation' refers to the
whole, integrated 'living' entity, and secularism is merely but one element of one part,
statecraft. For him it was wrong to lift one 'limb' such as 'secularism' to the level of the whole
body the 'Nation' (1996:162). It reveals a basic lack of understanding of the important
difference between the 'nation' and the 'state' (see next chapter).
5. 'Hindu Secular Tolerance' - Emotional Integration and Cultural Assimilation
Golwalkar's notion of tolerance is a very important aspect of his acceptance of the secular idea
in India. However, 'tolerance' means different things to different people and Golwalkar is no
exception. The association of secularism with nationhood is key to his understanding of
tolerance. 'Nation', as we recall from the discussion in chapter three is defined within the
constraints of the five 'unities'. Those who fall within these boundaries laid out by Golwalkar
are considered part of the 'nation', those who don't come under a different and clearly lower
83
Chapter 4
or lesser category. An interesting note here, is that though he states above that non-Hindus
were never forced into a place of 'second-class citizenship', in his earlier polemic We he
claims they have no rights to citizenship (see Golwalkar, 1947:56). So 'secularism' or
'tolerance' in the context of the 'nation' is when non-Hindus (otherwise referred to as
'minorities') are tolerated or given freedom provided they accept their place in the hierarchical
structure of society and where the Hindu tradition remains firmly ensconced on top. The
expected 'tolerance' on the part of the non-Hindus is to 'forget' Moghul rule and the foreign
elements associated with their faiths and 'return' to their roots (as they were of the same race
as the Hindu people and whose ancestors were originally Hindu in faith, custom and practice)
and to develop a feeling of devotion to the 'motherland', the Hindu Nation. The need of the
hour for Golwalkar was for non-Hindus to accept a form of secularism that resulted in
'emotional integration and cultural assimilation' (Kohli, 1993:78-87). Outwardly, not only in
form, but also in the functioning of each sphere of society, Hindu norms, values and traditions
should be embraced 12 . Religious freedom and respect for non-Hindu faiths is limited to
personal beliefs in the privacy of one's home. Contradicting his own understanding of
religion, non-Hindus are told to treat religion as 'just 0ne portion of the individual's life... [the
private] ... for the rest that individual must be one with the national current' (Kohli, 1993 :81 13 ).
So Golwalkar could speak of the minority communities in the terms 'Hindu Muslims' and
'Hindu Christians' (Kohli, 1993:83; Elst, 2001b: 480; Gold, 1991:567). In a broader
discussion on the various levels of dharma that Golwalkar outlined (1. the national level
(rashtra), 2. social (samaja), 3. lineage (kula) and 4. the individual (vyakti)) Madan made the
following comments.
The arrangement is hierarchical, so that the lowest, individual level is subordinated to the others, and
rashtra dhanna, or 'love of the motherland' encompasses the others, kula dharma embodies the value of
fraternity and sarna) dhanna that of common culture (heritage, history, ideals and aspirations). The first
three levels, and the values typifying them, constitute the national culture, and are indeed 'the bedrock
of national integration'.
One must conform to them in order to belong to the nation. Freedom of choice is available only at the
comprehensively circumscribed level. The public arena is homogenized, and pluralism is allowed to
operate in the private domain of personal faith and worship. Only in this limited sense are Golwalkar's
exhortations that Hindus must be tolerant about religions other than their own to be understood. In 1971,
he said: 'The Hindu is born secular. He accepts the truth that there are different paths to God
Realisation'. (Madan, 1999:224; cpo Golwalkar, 1996: 130-132).
12 And so Golwalkar could say that he saw no reason why Muslims and Christians should not revere true national
heroes such as Rama and Krishna regardless of whether one considers them to be the manifestation of God or not.
(Golwalkar, 1996:417; Kohli, 1993:80,81,83,87,107).
84
Chapter 4
6. The Holistic Approach of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
Reference to the words 'religious' or 'political' are typically and deliberately left out of
descriptions the RSS gives of itself. However, we have already noted that for Golwalkar
religion or dharma is intrinsically linked with all areas of society, that there is no separation of
religion from society. Secondly, though the word politics is missing it does not mean that the
RSS cannot be involved in that sphere of society either. For politics is as much a part of
society and the wider culture as any segment. More than anything the RSS does not want to
limit itself to one or a few parts of society, but rather it wants to influence and infiltrate all
parts with a goal of strengthening the cause of the Hindu Nation, thus Hindu Nationalism, over
and against all other communities. Describing itself in cultural terms is equally useful, for
culture, like religion involves every area of society. Kohli says that:
Golwalkar claimed that the RSS was a socio-cultural organisation .. .In his view, culture was not
confined only to the realm of music, art, dance etc ... According to him, our culture was the manifestation
of a collective mind and ethos of the people of Hindustan. So, it included politics and economics and
also other mechanisms, checks and balances, values, norms for progressive steering of society
(1993:93).
Dr. Hedgewar established the RSS as a socia-cultural organisation for the purpose of
organising and revitalising the Hindu community in India. He had no intention of it becoming
involved in the political arena of society. Golwalkar continued this approach but following his
arrest, imprisomnent and the banning of the RSS in the aftermath of the assassination of
Mahatma Gandhi this significantly changed. Though Golwalkar had envisioned the RSS as an
organisation for the uplift of the Hindu community in every area of society, it was now (post1949) time to expand it more strategically. 'The Sangh...has never entertained the idea of
building an organisation as a distinct and separate unit within society. Right from its inception
the Sangh has clearly marked out as its goal the moulding of the whole of society, not merely
anyone part of it, into an organised activity' (1996:399; also p520). Golwalkar was
responsible more than anyone else for the expansion of the RSS into all domains of society
through the establishment of new organisations who would focus on a particular part\sphere of
society but who would find their leadership, ideology and inspiration from the RSS and who
together form what they themselves have called the Sangh Parivar (the family of the Sangh -
13
Compare Golwalkar in Spotlights, Sahitya Sindu Prakashan: Bangalore, 1974: 15.
85
,' ,
Chapter 4
RSS). These included such organisations as the Jana Sangh 14 and the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) in politics, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in to the overtly religious realm, the
Vidyarthi Parishad among students and the Mazdoor Sangh in the trade union movement now the second largest in India (see for instance Andersen and Damle, 1987: 108-156;
Jaffrelot, 1999:61,64,67; Kohli, 1993:93; also Appendix 1).
CONCLUSION
Secularism has had a profound impact on the nations of the world and none more so that India.
It certainly provided one of the major challenges ideologically to both Maududi and to
Golwalkar. Fundamentally Maududi and Golwalkar were united in their antagonism towards
secularism on the dual issues that religion should be separated from public society and the
underlying negative stance towards the idea of God and religion.
For both men, religion and God (however they understood God to be) were essentially
involved with society. What was needed was more 'God-consciousness' not less of it, or none
of it. The difference was obviously on the basis for which they asserted this position. For
Maududi it clearly came out of his understanding of the' Sovereignty of Allah' over the whole
of life and for Golwalkar the fact that Hindu religion!dharma was the life force, the glue, that
guided and held the whole of the Hindu Nation together. Likewise they both opposed the idea
that religion could be restricted to the private domain. Individuals are linked to the rest of
society and find their purpose/their salvation when they live out their religion in connection/in
relationship to the wider community and society. Anything else lays people open to the charge
of hypocrisy. Religion for both Maududi and Golwalkar was all-encompassing.
According to Maududi if God was truly Sovereign then He has the right to speak into every
area of society and He does so through the Qur 'an and the Sunnah. Golwalkar believed the
same thing but took as his basis the values and ideals held in the Hindu tradition. Maududi and
Golwalkar analysed Western secular society and concluded that the fruit of secularism is
selfishness, division and rivalry in the lives of individuals and nations. They were also both
14 For an extensive study into the origins and development of the lana Sangh see Craig Baxter (1971) lana
Sangh, Oxford University: Bombay.
86
convinced
that
their
world-views
Chapter 4
were
the
necessary
remedies
for
these
individual/national/world problems. For Maududi that meant that the world must tum to the
unity of Islam under God's overlordship. For Golwalkar the answer lay in the developing of
inner restraint (character), and the discovery of the unifying Ultimate Reality that pervades all
of creation. Maududi' s vision was to bring all of society under the sovereignty of God - it
required obedience to the dictates of Allah. Golwalkar's vision was to see the harmonious
working of society that would lead to God-realisation - it required obedience to the ideals and
unity of the Hindu Nation.
While Maududi and Golwalkar rej ected the values and premises inherent in the secular worldview they were not averse to utilising modem ideas and advances and to include them or
reinterpret them into their present contexts (e.g. modem scientific discoveries for Maududi and
modem ideas of the 'nation' for Golwalkar). Because they both had a comprehensive view of
religion in relation to society it was natural that the organisations that they led would seek to
infiltrate and convert every part of society to their world-view. Both the Jamaat-i-Islami and
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh started offshoot organisations that focused on reaching
particular segments of society, but which held to their ideological premises and who looked
back to them for accountability and inspiration.
One element that was unique to Golwalkar was the way he interacted with the idea of
'tolerance' that developed in post-independence India. While accepting this idea in principle,
Golwalkar claimed 'tolerance' was always a part of Indian Hindu tradition (especially as it
pertained to the running of the state), he went on to define 'Indian secular tolerance' as
submission to and assimilation into the Hindu Nation.
Most significantly, Maududi and Golwalkar took the liberty of interpreting their own
scriptures/traditions in the way they felt best responded to the challenge of Western
secularism. Not all Muslims agreed with Maududi' s views on Islam and not all Hindus would
subscribe to Golwalkar' s
understa~ding
of the Hindu tradition. Finally, it comes down to
whether they are successful in being able to convince their fellow religionists that their
interpretation is the right one and that enough of their fellow religionists live it out in society
to effect societal and world change.
87
Chapter 4
The next chapter takes us on from 'secularism' to the 'state'. If religion cannot be separated
from the rest of society, including the state, how then does religion interface with the state and
especially the state's relationship to any minority communities within its boundaries?
88
Chapter 5
CHAPTER FIVE
RELIGION AND THE STATE - WHAT RELATIONSHIP OR INTE.RACTION
BETWEEN RELGION AND THE STATE DO MAUDUDI AND GOLWALKAR
ENVISAGE?
The previous chapters have provided the background and basis for the discussion for this last
chapter. The personaVsocio-historical-politicaVreligiolis context, the answers to the questions
of individual and community identity and the response to the challenge of secularism
ultimately culminate in the question relating to the relationship between religion and the state.
In the present context, 'state', means political authority, the way society as a whole is
governed, and through whom and how authority is to be exercised ~ especially in relationship
to decision making and the religious minority communities of this society. Both religion and
the state have to do with the subject of power. The power to influence, the power to enforce,
the power to coerce, the power to control, the power to maintain order and uniformity, the
power to defend against enemies (perceived or real). Maududi and Golwalkar both sought to
provide ideological frameworks for their respective communities to pursue a 'right'
understanding of the relationship between these two power-centres, religion and the state. The
goal for this chapter is to outline what those ideas were for Maududi and Golwalkar.
I. MAUDUDI - Religion and the State

A. Basic Principles for Maududi's Political Theory of Islam (Islam and the State)
1. Din - Islam, as Religion, is a Complete System of Life, Universal and All-embracing,
therefore, an Islamic State must also be Universal and All-embracing

The essence of this chapter has to do with the practical outworking of the ideas of Maududi
outlined in the previous chapter. In Nasr's words: 'Mawdudi... asserted that Islam recognized
no boundaries between the spiritual and the mundane, between faith and politics: "The chief
characteristic of Islam is that it makes no distinction between spiritual and secular life."
Mawdudi consistently defended the principle of Islam's role in political life as both
89
Chapter 5
fundamental and logical' (1996:80). For Maududi Islam as a religion could not be limited
simply to spiritual matters l .
The key Islamic concept that Maududi used to express this holistic idea of Islamic religion is
din. Mumtaz Ahmad outlines the way Maududi came to this conclusion:
Through a systematic treatment of such key Islamic terms as Allah, rab (Lord), malik (master), 'ibada
(worship), deen (way of life), and shahada (to bear witness), Maududi demonstrated the rational and
logical interdependence of Islam to morality, law and political theory. The key Qur'anic concept that
Maududi used to advance the idea of Islam as a complete system and way of life is deen. Throughout his
commentary on the Qur'an, Maududi keeps coming back to this holistic and primarily political meaning
of the word deen. (Mumtaz Ahmad, 1991:487)
Din is most easily translated into English as 'religion'. But 'religion' must be filled with
Maududi's understanding of the word and not the more familiar idea that it relates only to
what is typically considered as spiritual beliefs or practices. Along with din, Maududi utilises
another key Qur'anic concept called iqama al-deen (the establishment of deen)2. It is not
sufficient to merely assent to this understanding of din it is incumbent on all Muslims to do
everything in their power to establish a society based on Islamic beliefs, practices and
principles. Mumtaz Ahmad comments regarding this term that it is this very concept that
makes up the raison d'etre for the Jamaat-I-Islami (the organisation Maududi founded) and
provides the doctrinal and theological justification for the political/ideological struggle of the
Jamaat in Pakistan (1991 :487).
More importantly Maududi believed that din could not be translated into practice unless there
is a state to enforce it (1986: 164). Herein, for Maududi, lies the necessity for the establishment
of an Islamic State. In uncompromising terms, and through a serious exegesis of two key
Qur' anic verses 3 Maududi explains the rationale for the Islamic State:
[ Which was probably his principal grievance against the ulama, the traditional Muslim religious lead~rs. He was
unhappy with them because they not only sought to fight for independence from the British with the Indian
National Congress (see chapter one) but that they consistently interpreted the Islamic faith in primarily spiritual
terms - focussing on the main beliefs and practices (five pillars - such as salat (prayers), zakat (tithe to poor) of
Islam. Maududi's interpretation of Islamic religion in strongly political terms is a key difference between himself
and the ulama.
2 Mumtaz Ahmad, 1991 :487.
3 These concepts are presented in the following verses of the Qur'an: "The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge
ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to the
din of (i.e., way of life prescribed by) Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day" (24:2). And, 'Say: 0 my
Lord! Let me try by the Gate of Truth and honour; and likewise my exit be by the gate of truth and Honour; And
grant me from Thy presence a ruling authority to add to me.' (17:80)
90
Chapter 5
Here [in this verse] the criminal law of Islam has been called Din-Allah i.e." the religion of God. It
means that religion does not merely mean prayers, and fasting and Hajj and Zakat, it also includes the
law of the land and the institutions of the State. If we want to establish the religion of God, the
objectives will not be achieved by merely establishing the institutions of Saum (fast) and Salat (prayer).
We shall have to establish side by side with them the Divine Law and make the Shari 'ah the law of the
land. If the latter is not established, then even if the institution of Salat etc., is in force, it will not amount
to establishment of din. It will only be partial enforcement of it and not a total one. And if instead of
God-given laws some other laws are adopted, it means nothing short of rejection of din .
. .. either grant power to me or grant me the assistance of any ruling authority, or state, so that I may
with the force and resources of the coercive power of the State establish virtue, eradicate evil, put an end
to conuption, vulgarity and sin, set right disruption which has spread throughout social life and
administer justice according to Thy revealed law. (1986: 164-165).
In a section entitled 'Islamic State is Universal and All-embracing' Maududi outlines the role
the state should have in society (1986: 146). The salient points are as follows: as Islam is
universal and all-embracing so the Islamic State must also be universal and all-embracing in
nature. The state cannot be restricted in the breadth of its activities. It must be involved in
every sphere of human life. Not only that but it actively seeks to mould every aspect of that
life into the image of Divine Law with its moral norms and programmes of social reform. In
this kind of state no individual can regard any part of their life as personal or private. Adams
refers to Maududi' s concept of the Islamic state as 'an all-powerful, monolithic state,
upholding a definite religious ideology and using the full weight of police and judicial power
to ensure all aspects of life will reflect the character of its Islamic ideology' (Adams,
1966:390)
Maududi recognised that this sounded highly autocratic and controlling, and threatening. But
he saw it differently.
Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the fascist and Communist
states. But you will find later on that, despite the all-inclusiveness, it is vastly different from the totalitarian
and authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship in
it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved. (1986: 146)
Maududi could say this on two accotmts. On the one hand, because He believed that since this
state was ordained by God it must be the best and His commands are always just and
benevolent (Adams, 1966:390). On the other it reveals once again Maududi's propensity to
believe and expect a utopian ideal. He was convinced that when all necessary factors were
present, the state would ftmction with selfless power and little internal disorder, under
virtually tmanimous assent and consent by the whole community to the state using whatever
means it saw fit to enforce Islamic Law/ideals even into their personal lives. According to
91
-i/. ,
Chapter 5
Maududi, this is not authoritarian because people will joyfully accept, indeed, want, this kind
of state interference'. Maududi even goes so far as to call this the ideal democratic society.
In a polity in which there were no grievances and both the government and the citizenry abided by the
same infallible and inviolable divine law, there would be no problems with democratic rights and
procedures. The question of democracy would not arise .. .If the populace did not feel itself oppressed, it
would not dream of democracy. The Islamic State was based on the society envisioned by the din. The
ideals of the din would not only cure Muslim society of these maladies that produced cleavages in other
societies, it would also distribute resources and power equitably. It would produce a society that would
make both government fiats and individual rights unnecessary (Nasr, 1986:85-86).4
Though din is not exclusively 'spiritual or religious' in nature it certainly includes that
cOlU1otation and therefore the role of the state must necessarily include the mandate to enforce
and ensure the establishment of Islamic beliefs and practices: to uphold and promote those
virtues and eradicate those evils and vices 5 enunciated in the Qur 'an and the Sunnah
(1986:263). With the Prophet Muhammad as his prime example, Maududi saw this state as an
institution whose prime purpose was to set up the rule of God on earth, to implement in
entirety the entire Islamic system of life revealed as the Shari 'ah, and to make sure that
obedience to it is followed through by all its citizens (Maududi, 1991: 102-103).
2. Power, Politics and Jihad

Maududi's thinking evolved over the years. Certainly, in the early establishment of the
Jamaat-I-Islami during the late 1930s and the following years Maududi's rhetoric focused on
the hmer rejuvenation of Muslim society through individual renewal. However, with the
reality of partition and his subsequent involvement in Pakistan political life he became
increasingly convinced that in order for the Islamic order he envisioned to become a reality it
was imperative that all centres of power would need to be controlled by the appropriate (i.e.
ideologically correct, Islamically pious) people. Only political power could guarantee the
preservation and implementation of Islamic religious nonns and values. Anything less than the
capture of political power would render the idea of a truly Islamic State a mere dream or ideal.
Regarding this, Charles Adams (1966:389) comments that Maududi held 'the belief that
An interesting corollary to this is that Maududi sincerely believed that once Muslim society was run in this way
society would not just run well but all its soc;ial ills (l.e. poverty) and natural problems (e.g. drought etc) would
disappear. It is perhaps because of this that Maududi paid little attention to the present and real social needs of the
different sections of Pakistan society. For him what needed to be addressed was not their needs but whether they
were living out the ideal Islamic life. When they did that their social problems would be realised (see 1. Ahmed,
1991: 114; R. Ahmed, 1994:699; Ahmad, 1991 :509). Needless to say, Maududi and tl-te Jamaat-I-Islami received
little public support from the most needy, and the most populous living in TUral areas.
5 These included adultery, drinking, gambling, obscene literature, indecent films, vulgar songs, immoral display
of beauty, promiscuous mingling of men and women and co-education.
4
92
Chapter 5
societies are built, structured and controlled from the top down by the conscious manipulation
of those in power. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important for the realisation of the
Islamic ideal on earth than that the right people, holding the right ideas, should occupy the
posts of governors in society6., Adams goes on to quote Maududi directly:
A man who has devoted any thought to the matter knows that in human affairs the most important thing
is, 'who holds the bridle reins?' Human society is like a carriage. Just as the carriage goes wherever the
driver wishes, so a human civilization goes wherever the leaders desire. It is obvious that common
people must act according to the pattern ordained by those who possess power, who control the means of
framing public opinion, who form the systems of individual and social life, who determine the standards
of morality etc. if these are in the hands of righteous people, worshippers of God, then it is inevitable
that the whole of social life be God~worshipping...None of the purposes of religion can be accomplished
so long as control of affairs is in the hands of kafirs [unbelievers]. (in Adams, 1966:389; see also
Maududi, 1993b:77)
'Power', Madan writes, 'is at the very centre of Maududi 's concept of true Islamic society, and
all varieties of legitimate power are for him expressions of God's sovereignty (hakimiyya)
(1997:141).
Maududi complained that the problem with the leaders of the Muslim League, including
Muhammad Ali Jinnah ('The Father of Pakistan') was that their lives and lifestyles fell far
short of the Islamic ideal. Their political goals were likewise, not predicated on the basis that
an Islamic State would be established but rather, simply, a geographical area of land - a place
where Muslims would be a majority without fear of political domination by non-Muslims (see
Maududi, 1986:43).
The capture of political power from 'morally corrupt' individuals (Muslims) or even from
non-Muslims, or from the dominance of un-Islamic systems (i.e. secularismf, in order to
establish a true Islamic order/society was an obligatory requirement for all true Muslims
(Maududi, 1986:165; Choueiri, 1997:143). Maududi described this as requiring 'effort', or
more typically of it being a 'struggle'. The Islamic idea associated with this is jihad (struggle
in the cause of God)8. It is also through jihad that the State and its citizens will establish din in
the Islamic State.
This is not to say that Maududi based his ideas on a rational argument alone. He also certainly harkened back to
the example of the Prophet Muhammad in Medina, Adams, 1966:389; see also Maududi, 1991 :102-103).
7 Nasr, 1996:83.
8 For a fuller discussion on the meaning ofjihad by Maududi see Maududi, 1997: Chapters 28 and 29,
93
Chapter 5
This was precisely the direction that Maududi and the Jama'at-I-Islami took in relation to
Pakistan. 'The political struggle of the Jamaat', Mumtaz Ahmed concludes, 'has been based
on the assumption that Islamic change in society will occur only when political power is
transferred into the hands of a party of God-conscious, Islamic activists, who by taking over
the state, will establish the necessary conditions for reforming society' (191 :485). Needless to
say, Maududi believed that he and the Jama'at were the appropriate ones to do this.
It is quite clear from all of the above and from Maududi's writings themselves that the Islamic
State for him was an ideological state, founded on ideological principles and laws, to be led by
men who have completely imbibed these Islamic ideological ideas (i.e. from the Divine Lawthe Shari 'ah) and who seek to put this ideology into practice in their daily lives and also in
every part of their lives! This ideology of din crosses all ethnic, linguistic and racial
boundaries and is incumbent on all those who claim to be Muslims. At the same time it also
clearly demarcates those who do not belong to this ideological community. They may not hold
any leadership role in this state but they may remain (as we will soon note) as non-Muslim
citizens with rights, but without public influence or poy/er.
B.. Foundation Principles for the Islamic State - Tawheed, Rasala and Khilafat 9
1. Tawheed (The Unity of God)
With Maududi it is impossible to begin any discussion on any subject without first touching on
the Sovereignty of God. It is the ultimate bottom-line and foundation for all he has to say.
Although some of his thoughts on this subject were already outlined in chapter two, pages 3233, and touched on in the following chapters, it is important to review this topic.
According to Maududi Tawhid is the first principle of Islamic political theory (1986:135). This
means that the One God (Allah) alone is Sovereign Creator of the universe and of all that is in
it. As Sovereign, God alone is invested with the right to command or forbid. He 'alone can
claim worship and obedience and He does not share that with anyone, in any form. Therefore
humankind is not in a position to dictate what the purpose or aim of life or society should be,
Elsewhere Maududi mentions three other principles that incorporate these three the third of which adds the
statement, 'The government which runs such a state will be entitled to obedience in its capacity as the political
agency set up to enforce the laws of God.' Maududi, 1986: 146.
94
Chapter 5
or can prescribe what the limits of human authority are. Neither has anyone the right to make
these decisions apart from God alone.
This principle of the Unity and Sovereignty of God altogether dismisses the idea that human
beings have the right to legal or political sovereignty. No individual, family, class or race can
set themselves in a place above God. He alone is Ruler and His commandments are the law of
Islam, indeed are the laws intended for the whole of humankind. Therefore, the appropriate
response of human beings, individually and collectively, to Tawheed is one of complete and
utter obedience to God and His laws, 'surrendering all rights of overlordship, legislation and
exercising authority over others' (1986: 137).
2. Rasala (Prophethood)
Rasala or prophethood, is the medium by which God has made the law of God known.
According to Maududi there are two things that we have received this way. Firstly, the Qur'an,
'the book in which God has expounded His law'; and secondly, the Sunnah, which is 'the
authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book of God by the Prophet
Muhammad, through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of God' (l993b:8).
For Maududi, the broad principles on which the whole of human life should be based have
been clearly given in the Qur' an. Muhammad, as the Prophet of God, was able to establish a
model for this system of life we are to live, by 'practically implementing the law and
providing necessary details where required' (1993b: 8). The combination of these two sources
is called the Shari 'ah. 10 This is not a minor issue. Maududi clearly stated that the nature of any
legal system [in a state] essential depends on the source or sources from which it is derived
(1986:45). The One Sovereign God has given His Law through these sources alone. It follows
therefore that no law for society should be established without having its basis solidly in the
Shari 'ah.
3. Khilafat (Caliphate or Representation)

10 Basically the Shari 'ah provides the framework for constructing human affairs. It is divided into two main
categories: Ma 'rufat (virtues) and Munkarat (vices). The latter is further divided into three further categories: The
95
Chapter 5
According to Islam, Maududi goes on, the correct place of humanity is that of the
representative of God on earth, His vicegerent. In other words, because of the powers or
authority delegated to humanity by God, humankind has been mandated to exercise that Godgiven authority within limits given by God. Utilising the illustration of the person who has the
responsibility to oversee an estate Maududi likens this role of humanity to an administrator
who is responsible to put in to place God's directives for human life and society (1993b: 8).
The state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a caliphate under the
sovereignty of God and will have to fulfil the purpose and will of God by working on God's earth within
the limits prescribed in accordance with His directions and injunctions (1993b: 9).
All those who are ready to fulfill the conditions of representation and the principles of
tawheed and rasala (that is, Muslims ~ those who have surrendered to Allah) I I are khilafa.
This position or responsibility is not limited to special individuals or to those who are from a
particular family, ethnic, national or linguistic background. It is bestowed on the entire
Muslim community.
Thus, according to Maududi, the Islamic state is built upon the sovereignty of God who acts as
the Law-Giver and is the de jure head of the socio-political order. Humanity as God's
vicegerents would look after the world as a kind of 'care-taker state' (Nasr, 1996:89). The
Islamic state that Maududi extrapolates, based on the above, is not one that is somehow
evolving, it is already perfect and complete and humanity's job is simply to implement and
maintain it. Things such as politics, elections and legislation play merely a secondary role in
this state (ibid). The realm or state in which these three principles of tawheed, rasala and
khilafa is described by Maududi as the 'Kingdom of God or theo-democracy'. 12 As Singh
comments, this is 'universal in scope because one God is sovereign over all. .. [and because]
the scope for Islamic polity is universal, there is space for expansion [geographically] through
Mandatory (Fard and Wajib), the Recommendatory (Matlub) and the Permissible (Mubah). For a more detailed
explanation of the Shari 'ah see Maududi, 1986:40-70, 72-92.
11 In another place Maududi defines those who qualify for khilafa or vicegerency as those 'who accept and admit
God's absolute sovereignty over themselves and adopt the divine code, conveyed through the prophet as the law
above a111aws ... ' (Quoted in Singh, 2000: 12). Singh also comments that this belief in humankind's vicegerency
is rooted in the Qur'anic and Hadith accounts of Adam's creation: see for instance Surah 2:3035; 7: 11; 15:26-33
(Ibid, also footnote #8).
12 Maududi outlines the differences between theo-democracy (TD) and secular democracy (SC) in 1993b: 101. TD ~ Sovereignty rests on one God; in SC ~ People are Sovereign
2. TD - All believers are vicegerents of God; SC - People are sovereign
3. TD - All vicegerents obey the divine laws revealed through the prophet; SC - People make their own laws
4. TD - The chosen fulfill the wishes of the sovereign God on behalf of all; Government fulfils the wishes of
the people. See also Singh, 200:13.
96
Chapter 5
the vicegerents. They are God's agents establishing knowledge of One God and securing
obedience to His laws' (2000: 12).
c. The Nature and Functions of the Islamic State

To discuss this thoroughly would require a separate thesis and others have already done so 13.
Nevertheless some brief comments are appropriate.
1. The Shari lah - The first requirement of the Islamic State is the full implementation of the
Divine Law - the Shari 'ah. Maududi was convinced that it held a complete blueprint for
the constitution of an Islamic State and the running of individual lives within it. 'Each
aspect', Adams comments, 'of the organization and functioning of the state derives from
directives of the Qur'an, the traditions of the prophet, or the example of the first four
caliphs' (1966:390).
2. The Amir or Caliph - The Leader of the Islamic State - The titular head of the Islamic
State, the amir was to be elected by the citizens of the state. These people could not either
nominate themselves for the post or engage in electioneering. Once in office the amir was to
emulate the role of the prophet in Medina and the first four caliphs. In other words the two
roles of prophet (religious leader) and king (political leader) would merge together in the one
role. The length of time and breadth of his power would only be limited by his faithfulness to
the ideology of the state (Adams, 1966:390). In Maududi's earlier thinking there would also
not be any political parties, because to have them would be to suggest that there was more than
one correct Islamic position. However, it was religious law (guided by the amir and the shura)
not the will of the people that was to decide what the truth was. After the initial years of the
formation of the State any dissent in the polity based on divine law could only be viewed as
apostasy (Nasr, 1996:91) though in theory every Muslim would have the right to their own
VIews.
3. The Shura or Legislature 14
As: a kind of parliament the shura's primary function would
be as an advisory role to the executive, although they would have some role in setting forth
Another prefers to call it 'modem-day theocracy' rather than thea-democracy! (I. Ahmed, 1991: 11 0)
13 For example Ishtiaq Ahmed's The Concept ofthe Islamic State in Pakistan.
97
Chapter 5
legislation based on the practice of ijtihad (Nasr, 1996:95). Even though all Muslim citizens
would be eligible for these leadership roles as co
~vicegerents,
in actual fact these were still
elitist positions to be available to those who met specific criteria
i.e. Muslim, pious men,
well versed in Arabic, the religious sciences as well as in modem subj ects (a reference to his
antagonism towards the ulama).15
4. The Qada or Judiciary
16~
Maududi saw the judiciary as the body responsible for
administering the principles of Islamic justice set out in the Shari 'ah. Maududi was concerned
however that before the Shari 'ah could be enforced in full 'necessary economic, social and
cultural reforms based on Islamic values should be introduced... Thus before the law of
amputation of a hand for theft is put into practice, a just Islamic order should be created' (I.
Ahmed, 1991:100). This issue particularly outlines Maududi's problem. As stated earlier he
was the one who unabashedly stated that there could not be an Islamic State without and
Islamic revolution. In other words there could not be an external enforcement of Islam until
there had been internal (in the hearts and minds of individual Muslims and society) renewal
and reformation to Islam. How could the Jamaat then enforce an Islamic State when this inner
transformation had not yet taken place? (Nasr, 1996:95). Maududi's answer to this problem
was to recognise both at work. Capturing political power was essential even now, but the full
implementation of society under Islam was a gradual process that would take place over
various stages.
D. The Role of Non-Muslims or Zimmis (dhimmis)

Maududi outlined in quite some detail the position and rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic
State (Maududi, 1986:Chapter 9 and Maududi, 1993b). As already outlined above the
foundation for the Islamic State is the Islamic religion revealed through the Divine sources and
established on the Sovereignty of God. It is an ideological state. Therefore all positions of
power and influence in society must be in the hands of pious Muslims alone.
Maududi, 1986:221-223.
See Nasr, 1996:95; Choueiri, 11997:115; Maududi, 1986:101,242-245 (Qualifications for rulers).
16 Maududi, 1986:224-234.
98
14
15
Chapter 5
Only Muslims should hold the rights of full citizenship in society. Non-Muslims fall into a
secondary citizenship with qualified rights. He defines this group as Zimmis: ' ... all those nonMuslims who have affirmed to remain loyal and obedient to the Islamic State wherein they
propose to live, regardless of the country they were born in' (1986:247).17 It is possible for
them to live in peace and stability within the boundaries of an Islamic State and could expect
rights 18 albeit with certain restrictions. They have the rights to protection of life, property and
honour; of personal freedom; of freedom of opinion, belief and practice - within the context of
their own religious community. They may even propagate their faith, but only among nonMuslims. Ishtiaq Ahmed further states, in relation to the issue of conversion, that Maududi
believed in punishment by death for any Muslim who converts to another faith though the one
who influenced the apostate is not to be punished. Belief is not a matter of personal faith. 'It is
coequal with membership in a social order that seeks fulfillment through the state. A change of
faith therefore, is tantamount to treachery, making such a traitor a potential ally of the enemy.'
(1991:103-104).
This applies both to the one who was born into the Muslim community as well as to the one
who had originally converted from another faith. Criminal and civil laws for the state would
be the same for both Muslims and non-Muslims while issues relating to personal matters
within the non-Muslims communities would be based on their own beliefs/personal religious
laws. However, they may not hold positions of real power and influence in society, and
certainly not be allowed to be the head of state or a member of the shura. Maududi and the
Jamaat also insisted on the establishment of separate electorates 19, giving non-Muslims
17 Maududi further qualifies non-Muslims into three different types: 1. Contractees, 2.The Conquered and 3.
Residents. Maududi, 1986:278ff. Nasr comments that Maududi had four main groups - male Muslims, female
Muslims, zimmis ('protected subjects" specifically followers of those religions recognized by Islam i.e. 'People
of the Book' - Christians and Jews) and non-Muslims (for those who did not fit into the other three). Only the
first two categories were accepted as citizens, with Muslim men enjoying full citizenship and women only having
partial rights. Muslim men were divided into sub-categories - followers of din and nominal Muslims; He also
distinguished between those who were Hanafi Sunnis from those who followed other law schools and the
Shi'as... 1996:99
18 For a more complete discussion on human rights in Islam see Maududi, Human Rights in Islam and 'Rights of
non-Muslims in an Islamic State', Chapter 9 jn Maududi, 1986. See also Singh, 2000: 19-20 where the author
outlines a brief description of the sources from which Muslim authorities have decided the position and rights of
non-Muslims - i.e. the 'Charter ofUmar' and the 'Constitution of Mecca' , where the former takes a much more
rigid, anti-pluralist stand. Maududi's position was closer to the more tolerant (comparatively?) Charter ofUmar.
19 Maududi explained that there was room for a separate electorate where non-Muslims could be elected to the
modern idea of a Parliament or a Legislature. Their sphere of influence however' would be limited to matters
relating to the general problems of the country or to the interests of the minorities concerned and their
participation would pot damage the fundamental requirements of Islam' (1986:295-296).
99
Chapter 5
restricted political rights, while at the same time ensuring that non-Muslims will not be able to
influence the Islamic State and its Islamic ideology based on the Shari ah. 20 It also helped to
t
21
crystallize Maududi's deliberate anti-pluralistic policy of communalism
In an ideal situation
Islam was to remain clearly separated from other communities (see Chapter 3). There is a very
definite sense of 'us' and 'them' and the system of separate electorates emphasises and
maintains (protects) this policy.
For Maududi, the Islamic State as he envisioned it had the best of everything. In concluding
this section on Maududi I do want to remind my readers that the topic of this thesis is
primarily concerned with the ideas of Maududi. The reality of history is that since the direct
involvement of Maududi and the Jamaat-I-Islami in the political life of Pakistan there has been
a difference between theory and practice. Adams points out that, 'In practice he often shown
willingness to compromise with ideas and positions that are more or less contrary to his ideal
theories.' For example, the Jama'at's approval of the 1956 Constitution of Pakistan provided
for a genuine parliamentary government. (Adams, 1966:393).22 While it established din in
every part of society it also upheld hrnnan rights and honoured the individual. The basic right
after all was the right to demand an Islamic order and to live in it and not the right to differ
with the ruling authorities (Nasr, 1996:92).
He also stated that those administering the State were not to force their will on the citizens of
the state. He however, does not explain what would happen if the citizenry refused to accept
the state's position and actions. In a highly romanticised, utopian way Maududi was convinced
that there will be hannony in society and little disorder, because the purpose and desire of the
individual will be the same as that of the community, those holding executive positions the
same as the individual citizen, that is, the execution and enforcement of the Divine Law,
Maududi also comments, ' ...the establishment of an ideological Islamic State is the greatest guarantee for nonMuslims in Pakistan' (1986:153). See also Singh who after evaluating Maududi's thoughts on the issue feels that
' ... if an Islamic State chose to adopt Maududi's version of Islamism, there does not seem any reason for the
Christian minorities to feel threatened.' Though he does qualify this by saying, 'This as long as they remain aloof
from politics and do not carry their freedom beyond the delimitation of their religious institutions, personal and
family matters.' (italics mine - 2000: 12). For a comparison with the policy of separate electorates with British
India see Adams, 1966:392.
21 Communalism - a policy, action or way of thinking that promotes and reinforces the separation and
segregation of different communities usually based on religious and cultural criteria. It is often used in an
antagonistic sense where oppression or violence is committed between communities or from one community
against another. Maududi viewed it positively as a means to keep the Islamic community pure and unadulterated.
20
100
Chapter 5
Shari 'ah and of din in all spheres of society. The duty of the citizen was to obey the state (i.e.
obeying the Islamic faith), to remain loyal and to work for its welfare. The Islamic State was
also democratic because in Maududi' s mind it captured all the virtues that were meant by the
term, that is, the society in which the highest moral values and the most cherished political
ideal were blended together (ibid).
II. GOLWALKAR - Religion and the State

As we consider Golwalkar's views on the relationship between religion and the state we must
remember that in his writings and discourses he uses the words 'nation', 'culture' and
'religion' quite interchangeably. One cannot talk of 'nation' without religion and culture,
'culture' without nation or religion, 'religion' without nation and culture. The Sanskrit word
Dharma is the all-embracing term that links them all together though each may have their own
separate peculiar elements.
A. The Nation versus The State: Rashtra versus Raj

In the preface to his initial treatise We or our Nationhood Defined (1947: 1-4), Golwalkar
stated that in all that follows he wants to make it quite clear that his discussion revolves
around the term 'nation' and not 'state' though they may be related. 'Nation' refers to a
cultural unit while 'state' refers to a political one. He believed that the two are clearly
distinguishable and that although he would like to write further on the topic of the 'Hindu
State' or 'as people now call it the "Indian State'" he would have to reserve that for another
discussion. This, for him, is particularly important in light of the comments he makes in We
about minority communities. These comments were apparently not to reflect any political
status they would have in a 'state' but were to reflect their inclusion or otherwise in the body
of the [Hindu] 'Nation'.
Golwalkar stands for the rejuvenation of the Nation not 'for that hap-hazard bundle of political
rights - the state' (1947:1). The focus on simply a political state and not the nation would
serve only to further the destruction of [Hindu] culture, and therefore the distinction is
important. It was in this light that he said it is vital to define the question of identity: 'who are
we?' which we considered in Chapter Three. KoWi comments that Hindu Rashtra (the Hindu
22
For other comments on Maududi's willingness to compromise when faced with political realities see Nasr,
101
',-?
Chapter 5
Nation) has actually little to do with religion or a theocratic state but rather it has to do with a
'geo-cultural' concept of nationhood (1993 :34). Here I have to disagree, at least in regards to
the comment that it had little to do with religion. I have already established that it is all
interconnected. Unless Kohli defines more specifically what is meant by religion, there is no
doubt that religion has everything to do with the Hindu Nation even if it is not the main
element of it. Dharma, is a Hindu religious ('cultural', 'national', 'Indian') term that is
intrinsically related to and encompasses the term 'nation'.
The two Sanskrit words used to define nation and state, Rashtra and Raj (or rajya) are similar
though different terms. Golwalkar (and later RSS spokesmen) use the term Raj (lit. 'rulership
of the Hindus') to primarily mean the law and order functions of the state, while Rashtra ('a
state having a Hindu character') is the more general and holistic term referring to society in all
its different spheres. The function of the state (Raj) is merely one element of society/the nation
(Rashtra) and not necessarily the most important (Embree, 1994:619,629; also Elst, 2001b:
661; Andersen and Damle, 1987:82-83).
B. Hindu Rashtra as an Organic Whole

Though alluded to in the previous chapter it is worthwhile touching on the holistic nature of
the Hindu Rashtra especially as we define where the political or state sphere fits into the
whole and how it relates with religion. Golwalkar directly and indirectly refers many times to
the concept of society (rashtra/nation) functioning as an organic whole23 (indicative of
Golwalkar's biology science background). With each part of society representing one element,
organ or limb 24 , in some ways distinct yet at the same time codependent and integrated with
another, bound together by dharma. Overt religious practices and beliefs are one element,
social life another, economic life another, political or state life another, and so on. What holds
1996:95; M. Ahmad, 1991:485; Choueiri,1997;113; R. Ahmed, 1994:695-696.
See Golwalkar, 1996:xi, 25-26,45,102,118,156,514,528,530.
24 Andersen and Damle write that the organic concept of society 'was a particularly persuasive argument for the
purposes of social unity and nationalism; the revivalists employed it to emphasize and to suggest the necessity of
a single political system.' In the Indianffiindu context if finds its genesis in the Rig Veda, 'the oldest Hindu
sacred text [which] pictures human society as evolving from the Supreme Person (Perusha) and compares the
four social divisions [brahmin (mouth), kshatriya (anns), vaishya (thighs), and shudra (feet)] to the mouth, arms,
thighs, and feet of the Supreme person' (1987:72). See also Jaffrelot, 1999:21,59 - who says that Hindu
revivalists attempted to use this organicist model to create a new egalitarian Hinduism in order integrate the
Untouchables (shudra) into Hindu society, with a view to dissuading them from converting to another religion.
Referring to Golwalkar's Bunch of Thoughts Jaffrelot further comments that the idea is that 'individuals will
23
102
Chapter 5
it all together is dharma, that invisible, yet real cultural/religious overarching 'Single Reality',
'innate oneness' (1996:26) or code of life. 'The strength of Hinduism', comments Hansen, of
Golwalkar's ideas, 'and the spiritual correction offered by the Hindu mode of thought lies in
holistic thinking - the understanding that the tiniest thing, organism, or being as an integral
part of a larger whole' (1999:81). Religion therefore will impact politics, and politics will
impact religion in some way - but where both are following the dharmic way.
This organicist model employed by Golwalkar was not intended simply to describe the
relationship between different spheres of society. He also used it to describe the relationship
individuals in the Nation were to have with the whole. The idea is that as individuals merge
themselves into the Nation 'like limbs and organs of man having a single instinct and a single
guiding motivation and all of them fused together [they] can work as one corporate personality
[and] when that personality works on the lines of affection and love and not of hatred or
antagonism, it will attain the state of divinity, an avatar... ' (Golwalkar, 1996:528). There is
both a sense of attaining moksha or oneness with the Divine Reality as a community, as well
as the sense of each individual conforming to the collective unity of the Nation. As stated
earlier, this confonnity is to dharma, the external cultural forms and internal values and
traditions that Golwalkar believes have historically bound the Hindu community together.
In this sense there is a totalitarian element involved. Though apparently without coercion,
individuals are expected to voluntarily give up a sense of individuality in order to strengthen
the whole. Jaffrelot comments:
Golwalkar's ideology can be regarded as virtually totalitarian precisely because he concentrates so
much on the relationship between the individual and the nation, a relationship in which a unifonn
system of socialisation prepares men and women to participate only in the one collective entity, the
national [Hindu] community.. .In this sense the Sangh (RSS) seeks to invade and "dominate" every
sphere of national life' (1999:61)
This has implications not only in relation to an attempt at providing an egalitarian platform to
embrace all sections of the varna or caste social order but also in relation to non-Hindu
minority groups who see themselves as distinct from the majority Hindu community. If those
holding political power in the state, embrace these ideas, how will it affect the way they relate
eventually merge into a homogenous nation, in which social differences [i.e. the caste or varna system] will lose
its meaning.' He believes that, in actuality, the hierarchical model remained.
103
Chapter 5
to minority/non-Hindu communities who do not want to 'fuse themselves' into the Hindu
Nation? This question is addressed below.
c.
The Function of the State - As it was, so it should be
Unlike Maududi, Golwalkar did not write or provide any kind of blueprint for the running of a
state that lay within the Hindu Nation. As we will see, although the RSS became increasingly
involved in the political arena, he himself maintained a particular disdain for things political in
nature. He never did get to write that book mentioned in the preface to We. Nevertheless,
scattered among his writings he does comment briefly on some of the issues' involving the
state usually taking the opportunity to hark back to the 'hoary' history of the Hindu
community (Nation) for appropriate keys for running the state.
The functions of the state were fairly limited. It was primarily a 'law and order' institution
whose responsibility was to protect the nation from foreign invasion and internal strife. A
common refrain for Golwalkar was that the state in modem times has taken on too much
power and influence and that it is dabbling in areas that it should not. This is specifically in
reference to the 'Welfare State' mentality that was in vogue in India at the time of his writing.
He believed that the state is not to concentrate all power within itself and should not secure
control in all spheres of individual life. He saw this as a way of enslaving individuals and
robbing them of personal initiative: 'It is well-known that power tends to make its wielder
oppressive and tyrannical. Men in authority, therefore, strive to suppress their potential
opponents through violence, thereby rendering themselves incapable of securing the peaceful
progress and welfare of the people' (1996:74). Violence and coercion, therefore, was not to be
a weapon for the state to wield authority.
In order to guarantee that this would not happen the ancient Hindu lawgivers, according to
Golwalkar (1996:74), decided it best to impose checks on those exercising power. Further,
they ordained that government power was only a means and was not to become an end in
itself. The state would only be able tp do good as long as it remained the faithful upholders of
dharma, which was the higher law. This was to be achieved in two ways:
1.
It was decided that in order to 'avoid slavery and bloody revolution and provide
enduring peace and freedom in society' political power was to be kept separate from
104
~:
Chapter 5
economic power. Together they offered unprecedented control but separating them in this
fashion kept them independent, and mutually corrective (1996:76).
2. Both powers were to be placed under the guidance and control of the dharmic authority
in the fonn of 'selfless and disinterested persons - the sages and seers 25 living in
hermitages'. These holders of the 'scepter of spiritual [and moral] authority' were
supposed to be on the alert to any injustice or wrongdoing perpetrated by these two powers
acting as 'constitutional seers' who interpreted dharma (Andersen and Damle, 1987:83).
The lives of these seers was supposed to be characterised by their 'statesmanship,
character, dedicated life, sharp intellect, compassion and concern for society' (Kohli,
1993:50).
Golwalkar analysed world history and as a result believed that the destruction and extinction
of ancient civilizations (e.g. Assyria, Rome, Greece and Egypt) was because of the overdependence of society on the State to steer and maintain society (1996: 67-69). Likewise
where one group or individual exercises total power (i.e. political and economic) history tells
us that the outcome is loss of social stability, progress and prosperity, not to mention
tyrannical and oppressive rule (e.g. Russia, Gennany and China -1996:75).
As to whether India should be a Hindu State Golwalkar merely replied: 'The word Hindu State
is unnecessarily misinterpreted as a theocratic one which would wipe out all sects. Our present
state is in a way a Hindu state. When the vast majority of people are Hindus, the state is
demographically Hindu. It is also a secular state and all those who are now non-Hindus have
also equal rights to live here. The state does not exclude anyone who lives here from
occupying any position or honour in the state' (in Kohli,1993:39).
D. Wanted - A Unitary State

Consistent with Golwalkar's 'one nation, one country, one society, one culture' stance it is not
surprising that he also advocated that India needed to be governed through a 'single state of
the unitary type' (1996: 197). He was against the federal system that existed in India as it was
25Elsewhere Golwalkar writes of these seers in history: 'They represented the dharmasatta. The king was only an
ardent follower of that higher moral authority' (1996:69). Kings would come and go but the dharmasatta
continued to hold the people and the Hindu Nation together.
105
Chapter 5
divisive and encouraged separatist feelings, negating the truth, as he saw it, of a single
nationhood. So strongly did he feel about it that Golwalkar commented: 'It must be remedied
and the Constitution amended and cleansed... ' (ibid).
The federal system recognised separate states mostly on the basis of linguistic and cultural
grounds, which was virtually anathema to Golwalkar who saw India as a homogenous
nationhood. The federal system according to Golwalkar sowed the seeds for fragmentation and
separatism in India. The conflicts that various states were then having with one another further
confirmed this view to him, and threatened, according to Golwalkar, to lead some states
towards claims for the right to secession from the political entity that India had become. The
vivisection of the 'motherland' during partition was bad enough. More than this, for
Golwalkar, it also promoted a loss of national self-consciousness and cohesion, creating a kind
of amnesia of self-forgetfulness that undermined the Hindu Nation. Golwalkar's remedy 'was
to sweep away the existence of all "autonomous" or semi-autonomous "states" within the one
state, viz., Bharat, and proclaim "One Country, One State, One Legislature, One Executive"
with no trace of fragmentation, regional, sectarian, linguistic or other types of pride being
given scope for playing havoc with our integrated harmony' (1996:218-228). This was
consistent with the view that Golwalkar advocated that there was one homogenous Hindu
culture. Recognition of a prolification of regional cultures could seriously undermine this
view.
The interesting thing about Golwalkar's views on the Unitary State is that it leans towards a
centralised administrative power structure. Apparently this was something to which he was
also opposed.
E. Politics and Political Power

Any discussion about the state inevitably leads to issues concerning politics and political
power. It certainly was an essential part of Golwalkar's discourse on the relationship between
religion and the state.
Consistent with his focus on cultural" identity and dharma Golwalkar considered politics and
the things that went with it as something that was temporary, superficial and transitory
106
Chapter 5
(adhivuram). Political parties and kings (i.e. those in governmental authority) come and go but
society, tied together by blood and history, remains one and whole, eternal, immortal,
permanent (dhuruvam) (1996: 118). It is an important discrimination for Golwalkar. His stand
was that if the transient (politics) came in the way of the permanent (society) then the political
must be given up. In other words politics is only a means to strengthen dharma (which
included culture and religion) and the Hindu Nation (rashtra), and when it fails to do so, it
should be removed.
Questions do arise however. How does Golwalkar view political power? Can political power
be an instrument of furthering and maintaining dharma, of Hindutva, the cause for the
strengthening and establishment of the Hindu Nation?
Golwalkar had a great mistrust of political power and the role of the state. He did not believe
that political power was essential to spread dharmic ideology. Though some would point to
the rise and spread of Islam and Christianity throughout the world through the wielding of
political and military power, Golwalkar would have none of it. Political power does not solve
the problem. In fact, citing the example of Christ and his early disciples, Golwalkar claimed
that it was actually when they had no political power, but relYing simply on their faith and zeal
that the world bowed at their feet (1996:72). When their successors gained political power
corruption and degradation took place. In his view the present powerlessness of Christianity to
mould life in its image in Christian countries is a direct result of falling prey to political
power. The same was true of Islam. Political power corrupts and makes the wielder
oppressive. This can be seen in nations such as Russia and Germany [under Hitler] where the
intoxication of power has led to the slavery and dehumanising of the population the
government is supposed to serve (1996:73). 'Power', Golwalkar went on, 'brings a lot of vices
along with it. Deception, duplicity, insincerity, ulterior motives, shallowness in thinking,
partisan approach ... making workers deviate from their goals, thus degenerating the whole
process' (in Kohli, 1993:64).
As mentioned earlier, political, governmental power is only a means to an end. It is only good
as long as it remains a faithful upholder of dharma and where it remains under the guidance
and control of the dharmic authority. Political power can also serve the Hindu Nation if it
107
Chapter 5
allows mass organisations in the country which are focused on rejuvenating society from
within to remain separate from political authority and if the men who serve in it do so with
zeal and dedication (Kohli, 1993:50). Political authority is powerless to play an effective role
in rejuvenating society, its cultural values and social solidarity and cannot substantially further
ideology, or the transformation of the minds of people into the Hindutva world view.
Therefore politics has only a 'limited, instrumental character' in Golwalkar's thinking - an
'external appliance' that can be used or abused (Madan, 1996:223).
F. The Ideal Hindu Nation/Society (Rashtra)

Kohli explains the ideas Golwalkar has regarding the origin and development of the state and
state power. He held to the belief that there were four' Yugas'. To him, the different' Yugas' 'Satyuga', ' Tretayuga' , 'Devayuga' and (Kaliyuga' represent the different situations of
societal development:
In 'Satyuga', all were equal, property belonged to all and people used to live happily in harmony. All
four components of Dharma pervaded the society. Dharma did not allow men to fight with one another.
As time passed by, selfishness in human nature slowly raised its head. So, the need of some governance
and state power was felt by the people. In due course of time, the situation aggravated into what today is
termed 'Kaliyuga'. Erosion of Dharma is the root cause of all the miseries and disorder in society. Our
ancestors ...put forth a future model named' Krityuga'. This 'Krityuga' will be ushered in by the
perseverance and endeavour of the people abiding by Dharma. Dharma will flourish with all its glory
again. The innate oneness of the inanimate and the animate creations will be felt by all. (Kohli, 1993 :48)
The way, therefore, to deal with the present problems in society and to see the rejuvenation of
society is by inculcating dharma in all the people. The future society would be a stateless
society, where political power would fade away and society would be governed by sanskriti
and dharma (Kohli, 1993:49)26. There would not be envy, people would not acquire wealth
through wrong means and their lives would not be guided by materialistic goals. Where
dharma is practiced by all there will be no disorder, and therefore no need for social controls,
for the instrument of the State, for political power. It is not clear however, whether this
idealised society is also functioning in relation to other societies who do not uphold dharma
and whether political power would be needed to defend the Nation. One assumes that
somehow the entire world has imbibed the way of dharma in belief and practice.
G. Non- HinduslMinorities and the State
26
See also Andersen and Damle, 1987:83.

108
Chapter 5
Any discussion on the relationship between nonHindus/minorities and the State invariably
returns to the remarks that Golwalkar made concerning the non-Hindu minorities in his book
We (see Chapter 3). Golwalkar passionately made his case that non-Hindus, especially
Clrristians and Muslims as members of a foreign religion, must either return to their Hindu
roots and be assimilated into the Hindu Nation or find themselves outside the nation 'at the
sweet will of the national race', without the expectation of favour, preferential treatment or
even citizens rights. In his preface Golwalkar takes pains to state that his comments must only
be interpreted in the context of his views regarding the concept of 'Nation' and not that of the
'State'. Given the strength of his comments one finds it difficult to make a clear distinction
between the two. Citizens rights, for instance, is a 'State' not 'Nation' idea.
However,
Golwalkar fails to explain further how he sees this being enforced by the state. In view of his
earlier comments that India would do well to learn from Nazi Germany's experience in their
initial treatment of the Jews, one is hard pressed not to consider the possibility that the [Hindu]
state, in certain circumstances, may use their powers to enforce the will of the state on its
minorities.
One would do well to take note of Koenrad Elst's recent attempts to bring a different
'positive' side to Golwalkar's comments. In context, Elst points out that in later years
Golwalkar and the RSS withdrew We or our Nationhood Defined from circulation and it has
not been published since. According to Elst this was done in recognition that We or our
Nationhood Defined was an immature publication and that its focus was an attempt to cast the
Hindu Nation in the mould of Western nationalism (2001a: 129). Yet, there does not seem to
be a clear repudiation of the underlYing ideas. Nevertheless, Elst attempts to address
Golwalkar's famous words. Firstly, Elst writes that the comments have nothing to do with
genocide and ethnic cleansing as non-Hindus 'may stay in the country', although they may not
claim any privileges. He further comments that ardent secularists should agree with this. All
people should be treated the same in a secular state regardless of religious faith. There should
be no special provisions made just because one is from a minority religious community. The
disputable part of Golwalkar's 'fascist' comments, Elst goes on, is the part of the quote where
Golwalkar claimed that the minority people must 'not claim even citizen's rights'. But, in this
case, he goes on, it would simply mean that Muslims would get the sa:c1e status in Golwalkar's
India as Clrristians and Jews, and sometimes pagans as well, as they would under the Zimma
109
Chapter 5
(charter of toleration)27 situation in an Islamic State. They may stay in their own country
(conquered by the Muslims) but may not claim any privileges or even citizens rights
(2001a:132). Elst takes some time to explain the different Islamic schools of interpretation and
comments that a fundamental element in the whole status conferred is that non-Muslims are
excluded from the political decision making process. Elst continues:
... At worst one could interpret the controversial paragraph in Guruji's book as amounting to a proposal
for reciprocity with the treatment which non-Muslims get in the status under the mildest (Hanifite)
system of Islamic law... The expression "not even citizens rights" strictly means that he would give
Muslims the same status which residents with a foreign passport have protection under the law, but not
participation in political decision-making (author'S italics - 2001 a: 133).
Elst clearly has a bias against Muslims, especially Islamic ideology, in his books. But his point
is taken, that if Golwalkar was to continue to hold to this view it would only be a similar
situation to the way non-Muslims are treated in those countries seeking to establish a Muslim
State. Though this may sound surprising this was actually what Maududi advocated for India
after partition. Not that the new India should adopt Islamic law but that the new Constitution
should be framed on the basis of the laws of Manu - Hindu law. This may seem strange but
for Maududi this was logical. For him it was better for Muslims to live in a Hindu religious
state than in no religious state at all. It was consistent with his anti-secular views, that religion
was all-encompassing and there should be no dichotomy between the sacred and the secular.
But it served another purpose as well. 'Advocating a society based on zimmi (non-Muslim)Muslim dichotomy was the flip-side of the imposition of Hindu Manu laws on Muslims.
Promoting the one ensured the legitimacy of the other' (Nasr, 1996: 100). It would also help to
preserve the communal boundaries between Hindus and Muslims which was an important
issue for Maududi and his ideology
H. The RSS, Religion and Politics
Golwalkar, and indeed the RSS, have continued to maintain down the years that the RSS is a
non-political socio-cultural organisation whose aim is to revitalise Hindu society (see for
instance, 1996:517). Its emphasis is on the oneness of the nation and the need to organise
Hindu society into a strong, vibrant nation. However, while it may not publicly acknowledge
any overtly political or religious goals, the RSS clearly is involved in politics and religion,
amongst other things it has helped to give birth to organisations political and religious such as
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
27
See my comments on this under Maududi's section in this chapter.

110
Chapter 5
Certainly, after the ban on the RSS was lifted in 1949, there was a clear shift in strategic
involvement in all areas of society, not just political. The large number of affiliated
organizations, including political ones, was a recognition that it was vital for the RSS to get
more directly involved. This meant also that it was important to have a politically friendly
government having witnessed first-hand what an unfriendly state power could do to them (i.e.
the arrest of Golwalkar and subsequent ban on the RSS). Yet a significant difference was that
the RSS itself would not be overtly represented as their own body in any area. They were to be
the 'head of the household', at the apex of the decision-making process (Andersen and Damle,
1987:95-96, 144) of this family of organisations, whom they themselves refer to as the 'Sangh
Parivar' (literally 'family of the Sangh'
RSS). In much the same way that the seers of old
were supposed to act as the 'moral authority' to check political and economic powers in
society the RSS see themselves taking the same role both for their own 'family' as well as for
society as whole 28 . In the context of the political/state arena Golwalkar writes that they are
'keeping themselves aloof from the tentacles of political power [while] at the same time alert
and powerful enough to check the erring powers that be' (1996:73; see also Kohli, 1993:550).
In the organicist model the RSS see themselves as the body that works towards the organising
and rejuvenating of the Hindu Nation. As a kind of 'institutional guru', to use Gold's
expression (1991: 571), or as a Raj Guru 29 , the RSS seeks to input, influence and to hold
accountable those wielding political power (the state) in the nation of India in order to best
achieve their ultimate objectives for establishing Hindu Rashtra in all its glory. They are
above all institutions in society, establishing dharma, and bringing harmony and oneness once
again back to the Nation. The question remains: To whom then will they be accountable?
As a final word it is well worth quoting T.N. Madan who made these summary statements
about Golwalkar, the RSS and the relationship between Hindu culture [and religion] and
politics:
This is clear in some comments made in Bunch of Thoughts where he likens these sages and seers, as the
defenders of the Hindu nation, to: Sri Ram against Ravana; Sri Shankaracharya against Buddhist age; Chaitanya,
Tulsidas, Surdas against Muslim domination. He sees the same spiritual authority in the [then] present national
renaissance, the revivalists, against the foreign British yoke: Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Dayananda Ramana
and Yogi Aurobindo. The inference is that Golwalkar and the RSS see themselves as ones who stand in the same
roles.
29 See Goyal, 2000: 166.
28
III
Chapter 5
The above [Golwalkar's famous comments in We] is an unambiguous statement about power, couched
in cultural and political tenns; the relation between culture and politics is obviously an internal
(hierarchical) one. In view of this, the professed non-involvement of the RSS in politics can be seen for
what its, namely a strategy. If we recognize the pre-eminence of Hindu culture, Hindu monopoly over
power is ensured ideologicalIy... [since Golwalkar's assumption of the leadership of the RSS, post-We]
the responsibility that went with it made him more circumspect in his pronouncements, but the essence
of his politico-cultural position remained unchanged... The above discussion of Golwalkar's views
should suffice to bring out the fact that, disavowals notwithstanding the ultimate objective of the RSS is
political domination through cultural homogenization (1996:223, 225)
Once Hindu cultural supremacy is established, it is natural that political power will be used to
maintain and protect that position. As Embree concluded, ' ...to outsiders it [the RSS] appears
as the quintessential example of the involvement of religion in politics' (1994:619).
CONCLUSION
This chapter began with the simple statement: Din and Dharma. These two terms, din for
Maududi, and dharma for Golwalkar, provided the framework for their respective ideologies.
Both terms implied that Islam on the one hand and Hindu culture/religion on the other
represented an all encompassing way of life. There was no dichotomy between religion and
politics. As Nasr so clearly pointed out regarding Maududi's ideas, but which also holds true
for Golwalkar, 'the religious infonned the political and the political sustained the religious'
(1996: 83). Both the religious and the political were simply parts or limbs of the same system
of life which was held together - by din according to Maududi, and by dharma according to
Golwalkar. The contrast of course was that Maududi filled din with meaning based on 'clearly
revealed' Divine sources and the understanding of the Sovereignty of God (Allah) whereas
Golwalkar filled dharma with meaning based on traditional Hindu culture, religious beliefs
and philosophy (with reference to Hindu scriptures). Both, however, took the liberty and
responsibility to interpret these in the light of their own understanding and the changing
historical/cultural/social/political circumstances they faced in their generation. Both sincerely
believed in their ideology - the belief system or world-views that they set forth, and
established organisations that would help propagate and realise that ideology in their
respective societies..
Though both believed that it was essential to first see a transformation in the character and
lives of individuals before society and the political arena could be changed, both compromised
to various degrees when faced with political realities, the partition of India for Maududi and
112
Chapter 5
his arrest and the subsequent banning of the RSS in 1947-49 for Golwalkar. Maududi and the
Jamaat believed that it was right to jump right into political life as an organisation seeking to
directly 'capture' power in order to see Islamisation take place fully, even if this appeared
contrary to their original strategy. Golwalkar and the RSS on the other hand took a different
route. They helped to birth affiliated organisations (for example, BJS/BJP and the VHP) which
would represent them and their ideology/vision in politics and direct religious advocacy.30
Rather than taking the driver's seat, so to speak, they were happy to be the navigator directing
the other groups and assuming a directive though unofficial, decision-making role, though in
reality their ultimate goal was the same as the Jamaat.
As for the running of the state both Maududi and Golwalkar had concerns about the abuse of
authority and sought to bring in checks and accountability. Maududi saw this in the
qualifications of those who would take the positions as the amir and in the shura. Apparently
the amir was to remain accountable to the shura, men who were elected because of both their
piety as well as their understanding and interpretative ability of the shari 'ah, the Law of God.
Golwalkar looked to the seers and sages, religious holy men who were supposed to be
disinterested and above political and economic corruptibility to provide accountability for the
powers that be. Both Maududi and Golwalkar were against the use of force and violence or
coercion to fulfill state responsibilities, yet both were unclear as to what would happen if there
was opposition.
They were both convinced that if they were able to put 'the right people, with the right ideas,
in the right positions of power' then the state could and would work for the establishment of
din and dharma. In fact both held utopian, idealised visions for society that stated that if
everyone in society would only live according to the ideals set out in din and dharma there in
fact would be no disorder in society and harmony would reign. Golwalkar saw this as a
'stateless society'. For Maududi, the state was inherent in the formation of din so the ideal
meant joyful obedience to authority and righteous rulership. Maududi believed that the
political arena was an intrinsic part of Islamic society. But for Golwalkar the political was
transient, and was only valid to the degree that it upheld dharma. Both were strongly against
The VHP seeks to unite the seers, sages, sadhus etc of Hinduism and mobilize them to support issues that
support the cause of Hindutva, for example the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and the plan to
rebuild the temple in its place.
113
30
, ..f- .. ,.
, ~.
Chapter 5
"i
conversion from their religious community to another. They both agreed that conversion is
primarily a change in loyalty to the community and would be viewed as a dangerous threat to
society (treachery) and the ideology that underlies it. Both would initiate steps to address this.
Maududi believed wholeheartedly that the state should be actively involved in enforcing
religious injunctions in society, although perhaps political expediency required Maududi to
describe the 'how of enforcement' in more circumspect tenns. Golwalkar shied away from this
believing that autonomous socio/cultural organisations would better serve this purpose, free
from the corrupting influence of political power. When the Hindu Nation was supreme,
adherence to the ideology would naturally follow. For Maududi, the Sovereignty of God and
the Shari lah were the foundations for society and the state. For Golwalkar it was the Hindu
Nation and the living out of dharmic values. God (Allah), according to Maududi was the de
jure head of the state and society. The Hindu Nation, took that place for Golwalkar.
Another difference was that Maududi worked towards a state in which there were different
laws and a different status for Muslims and non-Muslims. He was a strident communalist.
Golwalkar on the other hand believed in a single law system irrespective of religious
background. What is not clear, however, is whose laws would be the unifonn law and under
what basis would they be decided. If Hindu supremacy were guaranteed, would it mean that
all would have to follow Hindu Law?
The objective for the state according to Maududi, was the complete implementation of the
Will of God expressed through the Law of God, the shari 'ah. Through state guidance and
individual renewal the Sovereignty of God would be revealed in society. In a real sense the
Islamic State was both the means and the end for the establishment of Islam in society. It was
both part of society, and yet encompassing the whole of society as the expression of din. For
Golwalkar, the state was simply a means, whose end was merely one element amongst many
both in the expression of dharma in the Hindu Nation, and in the strengthening and defending
of that Nation (politically, culturally, religiously, economically and socially) against internal
and external threats.
114
Chapter 5
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two was that Maududi produced a detailed
blueprint of the Islamic State, its functions, its laws, its dealings. Golwalkar, while
acknowledging the rightful place for the State to uphold dharma in society, falls short of any
detailed undertaking as to what it would actually look like. If the relationship between religion
and the State were like a painting, Maududi' s painting would be filled with fine, detailed parts
whereas Golwalkar's painting would be full of broad sTNeeping strokes. He leaves the details
for others to fill in.
115
Conclusion
FINAL CONCLUSION
At the outset of the thesis it was proposed that before directly considering the topic 'religion
and the state' it was important to look first at the related ideas, the building blocks, that were
essential to the thinking of the proposed protagonists, Maududi and Golwalkar. After
reflecting on their personal, historical, political and religious contexts, the way in which
Maududi and Golwalkar answered several important questions was considered. These
included questions of identity - Who am I (the individual)? and, Who. are we (the
community)?, then the questions raised by the ideas of nation and nationalism, and by
secularism. A brief summary of the results of the comparisons made in these chapters now
follows, then they will be used as a basis to make some general conclusions for the thesis as a
whole.
In Chapter 1, the context for both Maududi and Golwalkar centred around the events of the
first half of the twentieth century and in particular the events leading up to and after the
partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947. This of course, included the issues
raised by British Rule and colonialism. Maududi was placed in a long history of Muslim
revivalists in India who, for the nearly thousand years that Muslims dominated the political
life of India, were faced with the challenge of upholding religious orthodoxy while
maintaining political authority and control over a majority non-Muslim populace. Maududi
was faced with the same challenge of upholding religious orthodoxy but in the context of nOllMuslim British rule and the potential for change to majority Hindu governance.
Golwalkar, likewise, was placed in a history of Hindu reformers/revivalists who had to

respond to the changing 'confrontational and accommodationalist' policies exerted by the
Muslims over the non-Muslim population during Muslim Rule and of the 'divide and rule'
policies of the British. Maududi' s answer was the need for the political and religious renewal
of Muslim society with the end goal being the introduction of an Islamic State. Golwalkar
believed the need was for the strengthening of the Hindu community and it's identity through
a renewal of Hindu ways and ideals - The end goal for Golwalkar was the creation of a robust
nation dominated by Hindu culture over against all foreign intrusions.
116
Conclusion
In Chapter 2 we saw that both Maududi and Golwalkar believed that their respective societies
needed transformation, and that for this transfonnation to be lasting it must begin with
individual renewal (the internal question). They sought to define and promote an idealised
concept of what a 'true' Muslim or Hindu was. For Maududi this meant that Muslims should
return to the sources of the Islamic faith, the Qur 'an and the Sunnah, and to absolute
obedience and submission to the Sovereignty of God in every area of their lives. Golwalkar
looked to identify the roots of the Hindu Nation as essential ingredients in defining a Hindu,
these included geography, blood and culture (Hindu religion, tradition and language). The
embracing of Hindu ideals, the understanding of Hindu oneness and the worship of the Nation
as God would lead to both individual and community salvation - that is God-realisation. Both
believed that their respective societies had fallen from lofty and dominant positions once held
in India. Maududi claimed it was because Muslims had failed to know and obey the Will of
God revealed through the great sources of Islam, the Qur 'an and the Sunnah. Golwalkar
claimed it was because Hindus had forgotten the inherent oneness that had always existed and
held Hindu society together. Ignorance, claimed Maududi and Golwalkar, was the leading
cause of these maladies and the cure lay through education and instruction and a return to God
(Allah/Bharat Mata )-consciousness. The foundation for societal transformation was both a
renewal of God-consciousness and an undivided commitment and allegiance (loyalty) to Allah

and the Law of God, according to Maududi, and the Hindu Nation - its culture and ideals according to Golwalkar. Each held that all else must be subordinated to these t\vo things.
In Chapter 3 we looked at the broader, external question of community identity. Maududi and
Golwalkar both fought to communicate to their respective communities a means of
identification in order to combat alternative and competing 'nationalisms' to British Rule.
Both advocated the primacy of Muslim and Hindu communities (that is, their own) over all
other communities in an 'accommodation of domination'. Maududi's vision for the Muslim
community was trans-territorial (global) and trans-cultural. The Muslim Nation did not refer to
a particular piece of land or a particular culture but to all Muslims around the world who hold
to and practice the faith of Islam - these represented the ummah or dar ul-Islam. Golwalkar,s
defmition of the Hindu Nation was limited territorially (bound by the Himalayas in the north
and the sea in the south, but included more than what is known today as India) it was clearly
bound by one, 'homogenous' Hindu culture. These ideas helped to demarcate boundaries as to
117
Conclusion
who was included and excluded in the Muslim and Hindu communities. More than an 'us
against them' mentality it was an 'us over them' boundary definition to show what place other
communities would have in relation to their own community.
In Chapter 4 we considered the issues that secularism brought for Maududi and Golwalkar.
For both men secularism raised two main issues: a negative view of God and religion, and the
separation of religion from society, from the public to the private domain alone. As stated
above, both claimed that what was needed was not less of God but more of God-consciousness
in all areas of society. Religion was not limited to the personal realm but also had clear
societal ramifications. Both were convinced that secularism only brought selfishness, strife
and division and that the solution to these problems (whether it be the individual, community
or world) lay in either the implementation of din - of bringing all of society under the
Sovereignty of God, according to Maududi, or the implementation of dharma (Hindu ideals
and traditions) in all parts of society as Golwalkar believed. In view of tms both Maududi and
Golwalkar encouraged the establishment of 'sister' affiliate organisations that would penetrate
and influence specific sections of society.
A unique issue for Golwalkar was his definition of Hindu tolerance (an important element of
secular society as Golwalkar saw it)! as submission to and assimilation into the Hindu Nation.
Hindu or 'true' tolerance meant that all other communities would be tolerated as long as they
were not seen to weaken or threaten the Hindu Nation. Weakness or threat was defined by the
degree, or rather lack , of assimilation and embracement of Hindu culture and ideals. Where
such a point was reached Hindu tolerance would become intolerance and steps should be taken
to arrest the situation in favour of the Hindu community.
Chapter 5 summarises the ideas of Golwalkar and Maududi which have been the focus of this
thesis. In it I considered how the elements of the ideological systems of Maududi and
Golwalkar find their logical conclusions in their theory of the political order. Maududi and
Golwalkar both defined religion, Islam and Hinduism respectively, as a way of life (din and
dharma) that pervaded, guided and established society, including the State, in all its varied
1 Something that Maududi also did in his definition of the term 'democracy' in association with his envisioned
Islamic State described in Chapter 5.
118
Conclusion
aspects. 'Religion informed politics and politics sustained religion' - the two were
fundamentally intertwined. Institutional religion (overt religious practices, rites, ceremonies,
beliefs - about the nature of God etc.) and politics were limbs of the same body or system of
life. Maududi' s view of the relationship of religion with the State was very overt or explicit.
The Islamic State or governing political authority was both the means to, and the end of an
ideal Islamic society. Fundamentally, the Islamic State was supposed to represent a kind of
'heaven on earth'. Heaven, or ideal society, was described by Maududi as a place where the
Law of God was perfectly enforced and obeyed by the State and its citizens.
Golwalkar's view, while holding to the above understanding of the way religion and politics
related to one another, saw the State as simply one part of the whole. It was not the end. Its
role was to uphold and protect the Hindu Nation, as expressed through dharma, from internal
and external threat (that which could threaten or weaken the Nation). The political was
subordinated to Hindu culture. Rather than the State wielding both religious and political
authority, as Maududi wanted, Golwalkar saw a separation with religious seers and sages, men
of high moral character and spiritual enlightenment (detachment), holding the State, as indeed
other parts of society, accountable to dharma and Hindu oneness. Maududi believed that
upright, pious and knowledgeable men could fulfill both functions without the need for
separation. These men, according to Maududi, would both interpret and implement God's Law
for and in society.
Regarding members of other religious communities (non-Muslirn/non-Hindu) Maududi was

very explicit about this relationship and unashamedly outlined a blueprint for society that had
Muslims as the main citizens of the state and all non-Muslims as secondary members with
limited rights and privileges. Only Muslims (who had correct faith and knowledge - ideology
of Islam) were allowed to hold significant positions of influence and decision-making in
society. He held that to give this to anyone else was to open the Islamic State, and therefore
society, to threat and, in time, to deterioration. It was only Muslims who could be counted on
to be loyal, both to the state and to the ideology it stood for. Non-Muslims could not be
counted on or trusted to defend and implement Islamic Law (be it the Shari lah or din). The
rights of non-Muslims were limited to the practice of their own faith within their own
community and where it did not contravene or threaten Islamic society.
119
-';i,-
Conclusion
Golwalkar never specifically outlined how he saw non-Hindus functioning in his ideal society.
Nevertheless the ideas he elucidated implied the direction that it could take. If we remember
that Golwalkar, like Maududi, was a man of vision, who sought to paint a picture of the ideal
society, then it is possible to consider where his ideas might lead. Certainly, in his famous
statement in We, Golwalkar made it clear that non-Hindus only have a full and equal place in
the Hindu Nation as long as they assimilate and uphold Hindu values and traditions.
Externally they must participate, laud and look Hindu. They may hold decision-making
positions in society and the State, unlike Maududi's view, but only if they are committed to
upholding Hindu dharma, strengthening the Hindu Nation and imbibing Hindu oneness. In an
apparent paradox2 , Golwalkar went on to claim that unless Muslims and Christians change to
'Hindu-Muslims', 'Hindu-Christians' etc., then their loyalty would be questioned, and they
would be disqualified from holding positions of influence. Non-Hindus, to be considered full
citizens, would need to virtually deny any commitment to religious traditions, persons, or
places that did not originate from the soil or blood of India. Religious freedom, in the case of
non-Hindus, would be limited to personal beliefs (that is, in the home only).
Of all issues concerning non-Muslims/non-Hindus the issue of conversion was perhaps the
most emotive for both men. Given the boundaries of this thesis, I have touched on, but not
delved deeply into, this topic. Certainly, it would be an important element to be added for
further discussion. In the whole issue of religion and the state, and especially in relation to the
monotheistic, missionary religions of Islam and Christianity, Maududi and Golwalkar would
make conversion, from their religious faith to another, illegal (indeed, as pointed out earlier,
Maududi actually advocated the death penalty as punishment), and that this would be enforced
and upheld by the state governing body. Nothing is more detrimental to breaking harmony and
solidarity and causing weakness in society (the Muslim and Hindu Nations) than conversion.
2 The paradox is that Golwalkar, while speaking against things foreign, allows for a kind of semi-compromise by,
in the minimum, allowing for a 'Muslim or Christian-Hindu'. This may well be explained as political expediency
in order to sound more acceptable. Nevertheless, though it may sound good to Golwalkar there are some serious
implications. Not the least of these is that many if not most Muslims and Christians would find that their core
doctrinal beliefs would hold such tenninology, and the implications they hold for their religious faith, anathema
or blasphemous.
120
Conclusion
This thesis now concludes by considering three statements and their implications for present
day India and Pakistan. These three sets of statements highlight some of the crucial issues that
fonned the basis for the thesis, they address key ideas that arise out of it, and speak to future
implications that need to be considered.
The first is a comment from Elaine Pagels 3 :

'For ideas alone do not make a religion powerful, although it cannot succeed without them; equally
important are social and political structures that identify and unite people into a common affiliation.'
(Pagels, 1979: 141)
This thesis focused on the relationship between religion and the state. Inevitably that leads to a
discussion about power - who holds it and how it is used? Pagels was stating that, in the
context of religion, ideas, though essential are not enough. Two more factors are equally
important if those ideas are to have any long-term impact in society. That is, the need for
organizational structures, and power - state power - to defend and promote those ideas and to
unite society around them. This statement would certainly hold true for Maududi and
Golwalkar. Both developed their ideas and helped to establish organizational structures to
carry forward those ideas (the Jamaat-I-Islami and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh -and the
extended Sangh Parivar family of related organizations). What was missing, and has been
missing up to now, was consolidated political/state power which would effectively see those
ideas become finnly established in society. Maududi, beginning as pamphleteer, became a
religious reformist/revivalist and ended up a political activist. On entering the newly formed
nation of Pakistan Maududi saw in it the hope of a truly Islamic State. The acquisition of
power was the missing piece of Maududi' s puzzle needed to complete his vision. However, in
pursuing the political option, he compromised and a diluted his ideas to conform to the
~present
reality'. While being influential, Maududi and the Jamaat-I-Islami have never been
able to 'capture' political power in their own right, and therefore, perhaps, have not been able
to implement their vision for Pakistan.
3 This was written in the context of the early spread of Christianity, and some of the issues resulting from the
relationship, in this case merging, of religion and the State. The context is more comparable with Maududi as
Pagels was pursuing an argument about the way the State and religious establishment used their combined power
to stamp out what they considered to be heretical (heterodoxical) beliefs and practices. This was an issue that was
uppermost in Maududi's mind concerning the large mass of Muslims, who, while claiming to be Muslims, still
held to beliefs and traditions that had more to do with their Hindu past than with orthodox Islam.
121
Conclusion
Golwalkar and the RSS (Sangh Parivar) have been through a similar situation in India
although they have been more successful politically and ideologically speaking. Though their
initial foray into politics did not go well (Bharatiya Jana Sangh - BJS), their second attempt
through the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been far more successful. The reasons for this are
beyond the scope of this thesis. My point however, is that though they have tasted some
success in assuming politicaVstate authority in India they have still not gained power in their
own right. Presently, the BJP is the dominant party in the ruling government and holds most of
the major portfolios. But they still require the support of more than twenty minor parties to
function in that role. Realising this they deliberately and strategically withdrew several of their
key personal (Hindutva) election planks in order to gamer a consensus coalition to fonn the
central government. As a result they have also had to compromise on what they would like to
achieve. But temporary compromise does not necessarily mean a change in long-term goals.
The attainment of political power without the aid of ideologically opposed political parties
will give the RSS/BJP/Sangh Parivar the opportunity to implement an agenda that is even
now, albeit in small bites, being put into place. 4 Almost certainly, the Constitution of India
would likely be changed or amended to facilitate this process.
The second related statement is one mentioned in the introduction - 'Ideas have
consequences'. Not only do ideas come from a context, which I have described in the thesis,
but they also have consequences. The ideas that Maududi and Golwalkar put forward have had
their consequences in Pakistan and India. Some of those I have listed in the introduction. My
concern is for the future. Both men are dead, yet their ideas live on in the hearts and minds of
others. While, many of those ideas are the same, there is always the potential for others to take
these ideas further and develop them in their own unique way (Osama Bin Laden is perhaps an
example of this). Indeed, the Jamaat-I-Islami and the RSS have had those who have left their
For instance the attempt by Murali Manohar Joshi, Minister for Human Resource Development, to 'saffronise'
(the term given to the RSS's agenda to impose/promote a pro-Hindu ideas in society) the education system in
India. This he is doing, for instance, by rewriting the curriculum for history books to correct what the RSS
believe to be past 'mistakes' and 'inaccuracies'. For instance, today, as I write this conclusion, there is an article
in The Times OfIndia newspaper (p 4, 2/1/02, Kolkata) on this very issue. Entitled 'RSS scared of the truth in
history, says scholar'. A well known non-RSS scholar, Sumit Sarkar, is quoted as saying: 'The future of India's
children and the nation's history is indeed in danger when self declared academic gurus carrying a saffron
banners and chanting shoklas - suggest that history books need not be written by historians any longer and that
anyone with 'basic knowledge' of history and 'writing skills' suited for children, can be given the task ...History
cannot be imagined and rewritten simply to suit political needs. Nor can truth be hidden or twisted to ensure that
the sentiments of certain people are not hurt ... [the attempts by the BIP and the Sangh Parivar to rewrite history
122
Conclusion
respective organisations because these people believed that there had been too much
compromise and dilution, and the organizations were not as radical as they should be. 5 The
radical end/consequences for the ideas of Maududi and Golwalkar would be the establishment
of states that would uphold the supremacy of their particular religion, culture, and way of life
over other communities, if necessary through oppression, force or violence. Of course
historical events/movements and an accurate prediction of the future cannot be reduced to the
simple formula ideas plus organisation plus power. Other factors such as economics and
sociology are involved. Nevertheless, the genesis of much of history is located in ideas and the
way they are worked out through individuals and society.
It is worth noting here that one should be careful about the use of the term 'fundamentalist'.
There needs to be a clear differentiation between those who hold to the 'fundamentals' of
religion as they see it, and those who are willing to advocate and use violence to enforce that
view on others. A clear differentiation between religious 'fundamentalists' and 'extremists'
(that is, those who advocate violence for their cause) is important. Though there may be some
debate as to which category Maududi and Golwalkar belong, there is no doubt that there are
others who have taken these ideas, and who rightly fall under a 'religious-extremist' label.
Examples of the latter are Osama bin Laden, or the Nathuram Godse, cited above, who
assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, or perhaps the' abortion clinic bombers' in the United States.
The third, a combination of statements, comes from Samuel Huntington, whose book The
Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order has been a major talking point since
its publication in the mid-1990s. It became especially significant since the recent military
action by the United States and its allies in Afghanistan to bring to account Muslim 'terrorist'
Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, accused of masterminding the September 11 th
2001 destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in New York. Some of the parallels are
fascinating and worth pursuing in more detail. While I do not necessarily agree with all of
Huntington's comments or theses some of what he says is directly related to this thesis and its
conclusion. Some pertinent quotes will suffice as preface to its final comments.
text books and recent statements by its self appointed academic gurus, were] nothing short of Fascist methods of
censoring history'. The fact that some of his history books were being rewritten gave extra bite to his words!
5 For example, Nathuram Godse, the man who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, was a former disgruntled RSS
member who did not feel the RSS were going as far as they should have in implementing the Hindutva agenda.
123
Conclusion
In the post-Cold War world, states increasingly define their interests in civilizational terms. They
cooperate with and ally themselves with similar or common culture and are more often in conflict with
countries of different culture [and religion]. (1997: 34)
Of all the objective elements, which define civilizations, however, the most important is religion. The
crucial distinction among human groups concern their values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures,
not their physical size, head shapes, and skin colors. (p 42)
Indigenization has been the order of the day throughout the nonwestem world in the 1980s and 1990s.
The resurgence of Islam and "re-Islamization" are the central themes in Muslim societies. In India the
prevailing trend is the rejection of Western fonns and values and the "Hinduization" of politics and
religion. (p 94)
All religions, as Hassan al-Turabis said, furnish "people with a sense of identity and a ,direction in life.
In this process people rediscover or create new historical identities. Whatever universalist goals they
may have, religions give people a sense of identity by positing a basic distinction between believers and
nonbelievers, between a superior in-group and a different and inferior out-group" (p 97).
In the Muslim world, Bernard Lewis argues, there has been "a recurring tendency in recent times of
emergency, for Muslims to find their basic identity and loyalty in the religious community ... an entity
defined by Islam rather than by ethnic or cultural criteria".. .In India, 'a new Hindu identity is under
construction' as a response to tensions and alienation generated by modernization [and other factors]. (p
98)
... the fault lines between civilizations are becoming the centralljnes of conflict in global politics ...The
question, "Which side are you on?" has been replaced by the much more fundamental one, 'Who are
you?' Every state has an answer. That answer, its cultural identity, defines the state's place in world
politics, its friends, and its enemies .. .Identity issues are, of course, particularly intense in cleft countries
that have sizeable groups of people from different civilizations... In coping with identity crisis, what
counts for people are blood and belief, faith and family. (pp 125-126)
Deep divisions are ...much more likely to emerge within a cleft country where large groups belong to
different civilizations. Such divisions and the tensions that go with them often develop when a majority
group belonging to one civilization attempts to define the state as its political instrument and to make its
language, religion, and symbols those of the state, as Hindus... have attempted to do in India... (p 137)
In the emerging world, the relations between states and groups of different civilizations will not be close
and will often be antagonistic (p184) ...Fault line conflicts are conflicts between states or groups from
different civilizations ... Involving fundamental issues of group identity and power, they are difficult to
resolve through negotiations and compromise... Fault line conflicts are ... frequently [over] ... the control
of territory...The territory at stake often is for one or both sides a highly charged symbol of their history
and identity, sacred land to which they have an inviolable right: ... [e.g.] Kashmir (pp 252-253).
And finally:
In fault line wars, each side has incentives not only to emphasize it[s] own civilizational identity but also
that of the other side. In its local war, it sees itself not just fighting another local ethnic group but
fighting another civilization ...The local war becomes redefined as a war of religions, a clash of
civilizations (p 270).
These comments are very pertinent to the situation which exists between Pakistan and India.
From the need to define one's civilisation in tenns of religion and culture, to a cleft country
(India), to 'sacred territory' (both Pakistan and India), to 'fault line conflicts' between
civilisations, all these echo in the present and historical relationship between Islam and
124
Conclusion
Hinduism in South Asia, between Pakistan and India as political states, and fundamentally,
between Maududi and Golwalkar and their ideas concerning religion and the state. They were
not simply defining their communities. They were seeking to bring definition to their
civilizations as they saw it. Their definition is most clearly seen in their opposition to each
other. If, in the future, a series of events takes place whereby people and organizations who
have inherited Maududi's ideas in Pakistan and Golwalkar's ideas in India, come to complete
political power in their respective countries, during the same time, the potential for a major
'fault line conflict' is high (even if we were to put aside the 'little' problem that both nations
presently have nuclear weapons). Of particular concern would be if those in Pakistan would
not only see Kashmir as a problem that needs solving ('freeing their Muslim brethren') but if
they also believed they had the divine mandate and power to extend the House or Land of
Islam (dar ul-Islam) throughjihad, over present day Indian territory. A robust Hindu Nation
would rise to the challenge and one can speculate what might happen.
'Blood brothers, Sworn Enemies'. 'Blood Brothers,6 - Maududi and Golwalkar were born and
died within a few short years of each other, on Indian soil, and of Indian blood. Though from
quite opposite ideological and religious world-views both Maududi and Golwalkar come
perilously close to similar conclusions. Religion has everything to do with the state. Be it din
or dharma both claim that their religions are not simply made up of external religious beliefs
and rites but a way of life that must necessarily permeate and be lived out in every sphere of
society, including the political realm. Theirs is an 'accommodation of domination' where
Muslim and Hindu supremacy must be reinforced in order for society to be strong and vibrant,
and one. Yet they were also 'Sworn Enemies'. In the end, the bottom line is that both have
largely defined themselves and their respective civilizations in antagonism and opposition to
one another - 'Islamic Pakistan versus Hindu India' the 'Green Crescent versus the Saffron
Trident'.
The decisive factor will be whether those who hold to and have developed their ideas further,
have been able to convince a majority of their countrymen that their self-definition is the
correct one, and have the power to enforce it. History will one day tell us whether the ideas of
In Pakistan and India the term would more appropriately be 'Cousin Brothers'.
125
Conclusion
Maududi and Golwalkar will have ultimately defined the future of South Asia, and in
particular, the future of Pakistan and India.
126
Source References
REFERENCES
Adams, Charles 1. (1966) 'The Ideology of Maulana Mawdudi' in South Asia Religion and
Politics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Ahmad, Mumtaz (1991) 'Islamic Fundamentalism in South Asia: The Jamaat-I-Islami and the
Tablighi Jamaat of South Asia' in Fundamentalisms Observed edited by Martin E. Marty and R.
Scott Appleby, University of Chicago: Chicago.
Ahmed, Ishtiaq (1991) The Concept ofan Islamic State in Pakistan, Vanguard: Lahore.
Ahmed, Raifuddin (1994) 'Redefining Muslim Identity in South Asia: The Transformation of
the Jama'at -I-Islami' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R.
Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.
Anderson, Walter K. and Damle, Shridhar D. (1987) The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya
Swayam Sevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Vistar: New Delhi.
Bullock, Alan (1993) [1991] Hitler and Stalin - Parallel Lives, Fontana: London.
Choueiri, Youssef M. (1997) [1990] Islamic Fundamentalism, Pinter: London.
Elst, Koenraad (2001a) The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of "Hindu Fascism ", Vol. 1 and Vol.
2, Voice of India: New Delhi.
Embree, Ainslie T. (1994) 'The Function of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: To Define the
Hindu Nation' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott
Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.
------(2001 b) Decolonizing the Hindu Mind - Ideological Development ofHindu Revivalism,
Rupa and Co.: New Delhi.
Frykenberg, Robert E. (1993) 'Hindu Nationalism and the Structural Stability of India' in
Fundamentalisms and the State edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago
University Press: Chicago.
Gold, Daniel (1991) 'Organized Hinduisms: Vedic Truth to Hindu Nation' in Fundamentalisms
Observed, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University: Chicago.
Golwalkar, M.S. (1947 - 4 th edition) We or Our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Prakashan:
Nagpur.
-----(1974) Spotlights, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan: Bangalore.
-----(1996 _3 rd edition) Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan: Bangalore.
----- (2000a) 'For National Re-Organisation'. [Online accessed 21 June 2000]
URL: http/www.rss.org/librarylbooksandpublications.htm/
-----(2000b) 'Our Social Fabric'. [Online accessed 21 June 2000]
URL: http/www.rss.org/library/booksandpublications.htm/
127
Source References
Goyal, D.R. (2000) [1979] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Radha Krishna: New Delhi.
Gupta, Chitra (1993) 'Life of Barrister Savarkar' in V.D. Savarkar (Political Thinkers of
Modern India - 14) edited by Verinder Grover, Deep and Deep: Delhi.
Hansen, T.B. (1999) The Saffron Wave - Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India,
Oxford: Delhi.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1997) The Clash ofCivilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
Penguin: New Delhi.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999) The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics -1925 to the
1990s, Penguin: New Delhi.
Keer, Dhananjay (1988) Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan: Bombay.
Kohli, Ritu (1993) Political Ideas ofMS. Golwalkar - Hindutva, Nationalism, Secularism, Deep
and Deep: Delhi.
Lawrence, Bruce B. (1989) Defenders ofGod - The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern
Age, University of Carolina: Columbia.
Madan, T.N. (1997) Modern Myths. Locked Minds, Oxford University Press: Delhi.
Maududi, Abu Ala (revised ed.1986; original 1960) Islamic Law and Constitution [trans.
Khurshid Ahmad], Taj Company: Delhi.
-----(1991) Come Let Us Change the World (a collection of his writings from 1939 to mid1960's), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1992) West Versus Islam (a collection of various articles written by Maududi between
1934-38), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1993a) Nationalism and India (originally published in 1948), Markazi Maktaba Islami:
Delhi.
-----(1993b 3rd ed) Human Rights in Islam (an English translation of a radio talk given in Jan.
1948), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1996a) The Message ofIslam (a paper presented in 1976), Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----------------------( 1996b) Towards Understanding Islam (the original written around 1960),
Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1996c) Ethical Viewpoint ofIslam (an English translation of two public addresses given in
1944), edited, revised and translated by Khurshid Ahmad, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
128
;)",
Source References
-----(1997) [Ed. Khurram Murad, first pub. 1940] Let Us Be Muslims, Markazi Maktaba Islami:
Delhi.
Minault, Gail (1999 edition) The Khilafat Movement, Oxford: New Delhi.
Nasr, Seyyed VaH Reza (1996) Mawdudi and the Making ofIslamic Revivalism, Oxford: New
York.
Pagels, E. (1979) The Gnostic Gospels, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.
Radford, David P (1999a) 'What is fundamentalism, and why has it emerged? In exploring these
issues discuss at least two examples of fundamentalism, the adequacy of the concept and some
issues of interpretation'. An unpublished paper towards Master of Arts degree in Religion
Studies, University of South Australia.
-----(1999b) 'In what understanding of pluralism was the Constitution of India written?' An
unpublished paper towards Master of Arts degree in Religion Studies, University of South
Australia.
Rao, K.L. Seshagiri (1988) 'The Roots of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India: British Colonialism
and Religious Revival' in The Politics ofReligion and Social Change-Religion and the Political
Order, Vol.!!, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.
Saiedi, Nadar (1996) 'What is Islamic Fundamentalism?' in Prophetic Religions and PoliticsReligion and the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Paragon
House: New York.
Sarkar, Sumit (1996) 'Indian Nationalism and the Politics of Hindutva' , in Making India Hindu,
David Ludden (ed), Oxford University: Delhi.
Savarkar, V.D. (1989 - 6th Edition) Hindutva - Who is a Hindu, Bharti Sahitya Sadan: New
Delhi.
Singh, David E. (2000) 'Prefatory Reflections on Muslim-Christian Relations in the Context of
Mawdudi's Islamism' in Dharma Deepika, Deepika Educational Trust, Chennai.
Trehan, Jhoti (1991) Veer Savarkar, Thought and Action, Deep and Deep: Delhi.
Van de Veer, Peter (1998) Religious Nationalism - Hindus and Muslims in India, Oxford: New
Delhi.
129
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abul Ala Maududi, 'Essential Features of the Islamic Political System',
www.crusades.orglpolitics/politicalsystem.htm. Downloaded: 15/6/00
-----'Mawlana Sayyid Abul A 'la Maududi - Pioneers of Islamic Revival' ,
www.muslimsites.com/r.tufail/maududi.html. Downloaded: 15/6/00
Almond, G.A., Sivan, Emmanuel, and Appleby, R. Scott (1995) 'Examining the Cases' in
Fundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby,
Chicago University Press: Chicago.
-----(1995) 'Politics, Ethnicity, and Fundamentalism' in Fundamentalisms
Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University
Press: Chicago.
Arjomand, Said Amir (1995) 'Unity and Diversity in Islamic Fundamentalism' in
Bajpai, Dr. Suresh Chandra (1998) R.S.S. at a Glance, Suruchi Prakashan: New Delhi.
Basu, Tapan, Datta, P, Sakar S., and Sen S. (1993) Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags,
Orient Longman: Hyderabad.
Baxter, Craig (1966) 'The Jana Sangh: A Brief History' in South Asian Religion and
Politics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.
-----(1971) Jana Sangh, Oxford University: Bombay.
Bayly, C.A. (1998) Origins ofNationality in South ASia, Oxford: Delhi.
Bayly, Susan (1994) 'Christians and Competing Fundamentalisms in South Indian
Society' in Accountingfor Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott
Binder, Leonard (1961) Religion and Politics in Pakistan, Delhi.
Buultjens, Ralph (1986) 'India: Religion, Political Legitimacy, and the Secular State' in
The Annals (of The American Academy of Political and Social Science), Lambert,
Richard D. (ed.) Vol. 483: January 1986. Sage Pub: Beverly Hills.
Eliade, Mircea (1978) A History ofReligious Ideas, Chicago University Press: Chicago.
130
Bibliography
Esposito, John L. (1986) 'Modem Islamic Sociopolitical Thought' in Prophetic Religions

and Politics - Religion and the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson
Shupe, Paragon House: New York.
-----(1987) 'Islam: Ideology and Politics in Pakistan' in The State, Religion and PoliticsPakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, edited by Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner, Vanguard
Press: place not known.
Frykenberg, Robert E. (1993) , Hindu Fundamentalism and the Structural Stability of
India' in Fundamentalisms and the State, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott
Gadre, G.D. (1990) The Role ofIslam in South Asia, Al Fatiha Foundation: Pune.
Gandhi, Rajrnohan (1999) Revenge and Reconciliation - Understanding South Asian
History, Penguin: New Delhi.
Golwalkar. M.S., Upadhyaya, Deendayal, Thengadi D.B. (1991 b) Integral Approach,
Suruchi Prakashan: Delhi.
----- 'Our Motherland', 'Our Nationalism', 'Our National malady', 'Towards Manmaking', 'Guidelines for National Workers',
www.rss.org/library/booksandpublications.htm. Downloaded 21/6/00
Goyal, D.R. (2000) [1979] Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Radha Krishna: New Delhi.
Gould, Harry A. (1966) 'Religion and Politics in a U.P. Constituency' in South Asian
Religion and Politics, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Grover, Verinder (1993) V.D. Savarkar: Political Thinkers ofIndia -14, Deep and Deep:
Delhi.
Hadden, Jeffrey K. (1986) 'Introduction' in Prophetic Religions and Politics - Religion
and the Political Order, edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Paragon House:
New York.
Hoffman, Valerie J. (1995) 'Muslim Fundamentalists: Psychosocial Profiles' in
Jamaat-i-Islami, 'The Founder - His Writings', 'The Founder - Writings about Him',
'The Founder', www.jamaat.org/overview/founder.html. Downloaded 15/6/00
Kumar, Krishna (1993) 'Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India' in
Fundamentalisms and Society, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago
University Press: Chicago.
131
Bibliography
Lapierre, Dominique and Collins, Larry (1997 Freedom at Midnight, Vikas: Delhi.
Lennan, Eran (1981) 'Mawdudi's Concept of Islam' in Middle Eastern Studies 17,4,
pp.492-509.
Long, Theodore E. (1988) 'A Theory of Prophetic Religion and Politics' in The Politics
ofReligion and Social Change - Religion and the Political Order Vol. II, edited by
Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.
Long, Theodore E. (1986) 'Prophecy, Charisma, and Politics: Reinterpreting the
Weberian Thesis' in Prophetic Religions and Politics - Religion and the Political Order,
edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Paragon House: New York.
-----( 1988) 'A Theory of Prophetic Religion and Politics' in The Politics ofReligion and
Change - Religion and the Political Order Vol.!I, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K.
Hadden, Paragon House: New York.
Ludden, David (ed) (1996) Making India Hindu, Oxford University: Delhi.
Mangalwadi, Vishal (1997) India: The Grand Experiment, Pippa Rann: Farnham.
Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (editors)
------1991, Fundamentalisms Observed
------1993, Fundamentalisms and Society
------1993, Fundamentalisms and the State
------1994, Accountingfor Fundamentalisms
------1995, Fundamentalism Comprehended
------(1993b) 'Introduction' in Fundamentalisms and the State, edited by Martin E. Marty

and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press.
------(1995) 'Introduction' in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E.
Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.
Maududi [Mawdudi], Abula Ala (1978a) The First Principles ofthe Islamic State,
Khurshid Ahmad (trans.), Islamic Publications Ltd: Lahore.
-----(1978b) Vitals ofFaith, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1979) Finality ofProphethood, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1986) [ed. Khurshid Ahmad and Khurram Murad] The Islamic Way of Life. Markazi
maktaba Islami: Delhi.
132
Bibliography
-----(1989a) [1981J Our Message, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.

-----(1989c 3rd ed.) The Sick Nations ofthe Modern Age, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1990) Guidelines for Islamic Workers, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1991 b) [Khurram Murad ed.J The Islamic Movement - Dynamics of Values Power
and Change, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1992a rev. ed) [1973J A Short History ofthe Revivalist Movement in Islam, Markazi
Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----( 1992b) [ed. and trans. Khurram Murad] Witnesses Unto Mankind - The purpose and
Duty ofthe Muslim Ummah, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1993b) [trans and ed. Prof. 8.M.A. Rauf] The Education, Markazi Maktaba Islami:
Delhi .
-----(1994 3rd ed.) Islam and Ignorance, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1995a 4th ed) The Economic Problems ofMan and Its Solution, Markazi Maktaba
Islami: Delhi.
-----(l995b 4 th ed.) Nations Rise and Fall- Why? , Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1995c 4th ed.) The Prophet ofIslam, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1995d) [1973] Islamic Movement Pre-Requisites for Success, Markazi Maktaba
Islami: Delhi.
-----(l996b) The Message OfIslam, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(l996d) Purdah and the Status of Woman in Islam: Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
-----(1997a) [Zafar Ishaque Ansari trans.] An Introduction to Understanding the Qur 'an,
Markazi Maktaba Islatui: Delhi.
------(1997b) Four Basic Qur'anic Terms, Markazi Maktaba Islami: Delhi.
Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza (1994) The Vanguard ofthe Islamic Revolution - The lama 'at-lIs/ami ofPakistan, LB.Tauris: London.
133
Bibliography
Oberoi, Harjot (1995) 'Mapping ludic Fundamentalisms through Nationalism and

Modernity' in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott
Piscatori, James (1994) 'Accounting for Islamic Fundamentalisms' in Accountingfor
Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University
Press: Chicago.
Ram, P.R. (ed) (n.d.) Secular Challenge to Communal Politics, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra:
Bombay.
Rao, K.L. Seshagiri (1988) 'The Roots of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India: British'
Colonialism and Religious Revival' in The Politics ofReligion and Social ChangeReligion and the Political Order, Vol. II, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden,
Paragon House: New York.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (1985) RSS Spearheading National Renaissance,
Prakashan Vibhag: Bangalore.
Robb, Peter (1995) The Concept ofRace in South Asia, Oxford University Press: New
Delhi.
Said, Edward W. (2001) Orientalism - Western Conceptions ofthe Orient, Penguin: New
Delhi.
Sarkar, Sumit (1996) 'Indian Nationalism and the Politics of Hindutva' , in Making India
Hindu, David Ludden (ed), Oxford University: Delhi.
Shupe, Anson and Hadden, Jeffrey K (1988) 'Religion and Social Change: The Critical
Connection' in The Politics ofReligion and Social Change - Religion and the Political
Order Vol.!I, edited by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden, Paragon House: New York.
Smith, Donald E. (1963) India as a Secular State, Oxford University Press: Bombay.
-----(1966) 'The Political Implications of Asian Religions' in South Asian Politics and
Religion, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.
-----( 1966) 'Emerging Patterns of Religion and Politics' in South Asian Politics and
Religion, D.E. Smith (ed.), Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Sindhu, Sahitya (1981) Dr.Hedgewar The Epoch Maker, Rashtrottana Sahitiya:
Bangalore.
Srivastava, Harindra (1993) The Epic Sweep ofSavarkar, VD., Savarkar Punruthan
Sansthan: Delhi.
134
Bibliography
Syed, Anwar (1984) Pakistan - Islam, Politics and National Solidarity, Vanguard:
Lahore.
University of Burdwan (1994) Communalism in Contemporary India, University of
Burdwan.
Van de Veer, Peter (1994) , Hindu Nationalism and the Discourse of Modernity: The
Vishva Hindu Parishad' in Accounting/or Fundamentalisms, edited by Martin E. Marty
and R. Scott Appleby, Chicago University Press: Chicago.
135
APPENDIX I
Source: www.rss.org
Since its inception in 1925, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has now spread
over 30,000 places -- including both in Bharat and outside Bharat. No section or
group in the society, students, traders, artisans, etc., has been left out of its fold.
Many full-time swayamsevaks (volunteers) have been working relentlessless
and selflessly for a dynamic and positive transformation of the Bharatiya
society, The sustained efforts have had their desired effect.
The Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (VKA) has been running
schools and hospitals in the rural and tribal areas. For example, the village
Tayning (in Nagaland) has a school, an associated hostel and a medical centre
operated by the Ashram with the assistance of Heraka Naga Leaders. VKA has
808 full-time workers, executing more than 6000 projects.
Education in rural area~ occupies a place of importance in the scheme called
Vidya Bharati (VB). This scheme runs about 6500 schools across Bharat, and
has about 53,000 teachers all over the country. The number of "one teacher one
school" type of institutions in the far-flung vanvasi areas are growing fast. The
residential school in Haflong in North Cachar Hills district has 150 students
drawn from 20 janajaati groups comprising Nagas and others. The Bharatiya
Shikshan Mandai (BSK) has about 26,000 active workers, almost half of
whom are women.
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, popularly known as the ABVP, is
the largest University organization today. ABVP has not just undertaken the
task of conducting reforms at the University level, but has attempted to generate
awareness regarding the national problems among students as well. The role of
ABVP in bringing the Assam problem to all-Bharat level is significant. The
ABVP workers are actively engaged in apprising the Bihar Government, the
press and people about the growing threat from Bangladesh infiltration. The
ABVP has a membership exceeding 750,000; 3091 chapters in 126 (out of 170)
universities with 289 full-time workers. As a special mention, 600 ABVP
workers devoted their time and effort in providing succor and help during the
Latur Earthquake. Most recently, an infanticide survey project in Tamilnadu
was carried out and programs were convened to educate the people as regards
the associated ills.
Social transformation, upliftment of the poor, enhancing the self-esteem of the
downtrodden occurs with proper samskars imparted by various service
activities. Seva Bharati is dedicated for such a cause. For example, Seva
Bharati of Delhi has over 200 projects, with baalwadis, baalsamskar kendras,
tailoring classes, coaching classes, medicare centres, kirtan mandalis, night
schools, reading rooms, etc. covering about 75 slum areas. More than 250
'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies ~
projects have been launched, with a participation of about 150,000 Sangh

karyakartas.
Akhil Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), a labour organization, encourages
excellence of performance whether in production or in rendering service. There
have been a number of instances where the co-operation of BMS Unions have
helped the management to get over their troubles and run the industry
efficiently. This organization has about 3400 unions with a 4.5 million
membership across the country.
Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), over the years, has emerged as a major
peasant force in the provinces like Guj arat and Andhra and is making rapid
strides in other provinces as well. Successful agitations have been launched by
the BKS to get fanners' grievances redressed and their legitimate demands
fulfilled. The uniqueness of the BKS movement lies in the detailed study and
constructive approach in solving agricultural problems. BKS was the first to
demand crop and cattle insurance, which is now accepted by the Central/State
Government. BKS is active in 301 districts and 11,000 villages with an
membership of about 0.25 million.
Rashtriya Sikh Sanghat has been fonned for promoting greater cordiality
between the Sikh community and rest of the Hindu society. Its all-Bharat
convention held at Nagpur in March 1987 presented a beautiful blend of various
shades of enlightened Sikh opinion. The Rashtriya Suraksha Samiti has been
very active in Punjab to fight the secessionist and anti-national elements. The
Sikh Sanghat has 135 coordinating committees.
Our master-artists, trained in traditional skills, could carve out even from the
crudest of stones the magnificent images of the Divine! With the passage of
time, however, this unique tradition began to loose its sublime motivation. In
this context, Samskar Bharati was concieved to promote originality, creativity
and educative content to art. With its units in most states, Samskar Bharati has
organized several seminars and symposia of artists and literateurs with a view to
fmding out how best art could be made to combine healthy entertainment with
ennobling samskars.
Vigyan Bharati (VB) was established to provide scientific and technological

knowledge to rural areas, befitting the concept of appropriate technology.
Programs and seminars have been organized in engineering and medical schools
illustrating the use of scientific know-how for the bettennent and improvement
of life in general, and in rural areas in particular. Groups of volunteers
associated with VB have set up infonnation centres in villages to provide
necessary technical advice required by their rural brethem. Family planning
programs have been organized by medical students.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad promotes awareness about Hindu heritage and
abou matters of vital importance to the Hindu society in particular, and
humanity in general. The Parishad offers a variety of programs and projects that
cater to the needs of the society. Baal-Vihars, Education Fund, Regional Hindu
Conferences, Youth Camps, presenting Hindu Art Exibitions, Support-a-child
proj ects, etc. are some of the activities of the VHP - in Bharat as well as abroad.
The VHP, along with the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, is working in 20
different countries; for example, Kenya has 53 branches in 31 different places.
Many other schemes and social welfare programs have been inspired and
launched by the RSS for achieving and producing a dynamic and vibrant Hindu
society but promoting proper samskars through education and service. The
Bharatiya Vichar Kendra (based in Kerala), Pandit Deendayal Upadbaya
Institute, and others are involved in organizing discussions, lectures, seminars,
essay and elocution competitions, etc. to enhance intellectual understand~ng and
deriving solutions to problems facing the contemporary Bharatiya society.
"Vigil", a forum founded in Madras, represents the vigilant voices concerning
public welfare. This group is active in projecting nationalist views through the
mass media and reacting against every injustice. Arranging educative camps for
writers and poets is one of its popular programs.
In 1952, a few swayamsevaks expressed interest in serving the society through
participation in politics. They joined nationalist Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
in founding a new political party rooted in country's ethos called Bharatiya
lana Sangh (BJS). The sapling planted by Dr. Mukherjee with the help of
swayamsevaks has grown into a tree in the form of Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP). BJP remains the party of choice for swayamsevaks interested in politics
even though they have a wide variety of choice among mushrooming political
outfits in the country. However, overall percentage of swayamsevaks
participating in politics remain negligible.
There are numerous, literally hundreds, of other programs and projects inspired
by RSS, andlor by its allied and scion organizations, pervading all aspects of
social and national life. They are simply too many to mention. However,
hopefully, the above provides sufficient glimpse of RSS activities -- a step
towards fulfilling the dream and vision of a better, peaceful and harmonious
society.

Masters On Islamist and Hindutva Thinkers

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Masters On Islamist and Hindutva Thinkers

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

"BLOOD BROTHERS, SWORN ENEMIES"

A comparative study on the ideas of Maulana Maududi (a Muslim) and

M.A. RELIGION STUDIES THESIS

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies'

Chapter 1- The Socio-Historical Contexts for Maududi and Golwalkar

Chapter 2 - The Question of Identity - Who or what is a Muslim/Hindu?

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

Chapter 3- The Question of Identity - Who are we - the Community,

I. Maududi and the idea of Nationalism

II. Golwalkar and the idea of the 'Hindu Nation'

Chapter 4 - The Question of Secularism - How did Maududi and

1. Maududi and Secularism

A. A Critique of Western, Secular Civilisation

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

Chapter 5- Religion and the State - What Relationship or Interaction

Maududi - Religion and the State

II Golwalkar - Religion and the State

Appendix: The 8angb Parivar

'Blood Brothers - Swom Enemies'

'Blood Brothers ~ Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

having on Pakistan and India.

Why Maududi and Golwalkar?

'Blood Brothers - SWOlTI Enemies'

Why make a direct comparison between two individuals?

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

many to be the modem phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. Many of the authors

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

fundamentalism/religious nationalism paradigm but not side-by-side. Both sought to give

'Blood Brothers - Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

As stated in the introduction it is vital to understand the personal/historicaVpolitical and

Born on September 25 th , 1903,

Aurangabad, in what is now the state of

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

Significantly, Nasr points out, 'Mawdudi became particularly interested in

A number of repercussions from the failure of the Khilafat movement (a movement

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

leader of the shuddhi movement (an organised campaign to

inizami). He eventually received his ijazahs (certificate to teach religious science)

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

B. Madhav Sadashiv (M.S.) Golwalkar (1906-1973) - Personal History and

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS

A. British Colonial Rule

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

Anderson and Damle, 1987.

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

B. The Khilafat Movement

'Blood Brothers ~Sworn Enemies'

radical elements in both religious communities with an increasing marginalised moderate

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'

c. Vinayak Damodar (V.D.) Savarkar -1883-1966

Anderson and Damle, 1987:33; Keer, 1988:170

'Blood Brothers -Sworn Enemies'