Veerashaiva-Lingayat community is One !

Virabhadra Daksha.jpg

Background & History of Veerashaiva-Lingayats

  • Lord Veerabhadra, son of Lord Shiva is believed to be the founder and propagator of the Veerashaiva philosophy. The complete philosophy of Veerashaivism is explained in the text Siddhanta Shikhamani.  Scholars of Veerashaivism trace their roots to Hindu traditions and practices.
  • It is believed that the Jagadguru Panchacharyas of the Veerashaiva cult (The Five Sages) emerged from the Lingas at the commencement of each Yuga and established the Veerashaiva Dharma. The Five sages set up Five Peethas of this philosophy at Rambhapuri (Karnataka), Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh), Kedar (Uttarakhand), Shrishailam (Andhra Pradesh) and Kashi (Uttara Pradesh). These five mutts have been carrying on great work in the field of spiritual, social and religious upliftment of people. Many of these mutts are managing renowned temples which have Hindus of all faiths and traditions as devotees.

Historical Facts & References about Veerashaiva-Lingayats

 There is a reference to the philosophy of Lingadharanam (wearing of Linga around the neck) made in the Anushasana Parva of Mahabharata during a conversation between Yudhishtira & Bheeshma. It clearly shows that such a practice existed even before the birth of Guru Basaveshwara.

  • The Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (1902-1928), Sir John Hubert Marshall oversaw the excavations of Harappa & Mohenjodaro cities of Indus Valley Civilization. In his work published in the year 1931, he made observations that the statues resembling Ishtalinga & Taavaralinga dating back to 3rdCentury were found during the excavation exercise.
  • There is a reference in the “Guruvamshakavya” published by the Sringeri Sharada Peetham that the sacred Chandramouleshwara Linga (Shiva Linga) that is one of the presiding diety of the Sringeri Mutt was given by Jagadguru Renukacharya of the Rambhapuri Peetham to Adi Shankaracharya in 8thCentury BC. This is clear evidence of the fact that there existed no distinction between Veerashaiva-Lingayats and other Hindu practices.
  • In the year 1941, the High Court of Allahabad made an observation regarding the existence of the Veerashaiva Pancha Peethas prior to 574 AD (6th Century) while adjudicating the dispute between Kashi Peetha and its creditors. The High Court also had made an observation regarding the contribution made by the Kashi Peetha for the development of Banaras Hindu University.
  • All the above historical references, evidences the existence of Veerashaiva Philosophy which includes worshipping of Shiva Linga and Lingadharanam (wearing of Linga around the neck) prior to 3rd It also points towards the indistinguishable commonality between the Veerashaiva-Lingayat cult and Hindu traditions.

Basavanna and the Veerashaiva-Lingayat Philosophy

  • Basavanna is one of the most respected spiritual & social reformer of Karnataka, who rejected gender and social discrimination and played a pivotal role in spreading social awareness through his Vachanas. He is known for his progressive views and is considered to be reformer in the larger Hindu faith.
  • Basavanna was born in the 12thCentury in a Brahmin family and he later embraced the already existing Veerashaiva tradition. A detailed study of the “Kalachuri” inscriptions reveals that Basavanna was not the founder of any religion but a reviver and reformer of an already existing spiritual tradition.
  • Basavanna promoted the concept of wearing “Ishtalinga” around the neck (Lingadharanam), the practice that the Veerashaiva cult which was already in existence. Never in his vachanas or other writings has he used the word ‘Lingayat’ nor has he written anything that indicates that he started a religion distinct from the Veerashaiva tradition.
  • In the year 2016,the State Government of Karnataka published the 3rdedition of “Vachana Mahasamputa” under the principal editorship of scholar MM Kalaburgi. It is recorded in there that Basavanna in his Vachana No. 1092 states that he had become a true Veerashaiva from a mere Shaiva.
  • The Encyclopaedia Brittanica considers Basavanna as a Hindu religious reformer and as a subject of Basava Purana (a sacred text of Hindu Lingayat Sect)
  • Basavanna always believed that Veerashaiva is indicative of a philosophy and that the word Lingayat is indicative of a religious practice within the philosophy. Attributing a distinct religious tone to his teachings when they originally do not have any such connotations is impermissible.
  • The Akhila Bharatiya Veerashaiva Mahasabha was founded in the year 1904 and in its first resolution passed at Dharwad, it stated that Basavanna was not a founder of any distinct religion but was only a reviver of the already existing Veerashaiva philosophy.

 Genesis of the demand for a separate Lingayat Religion Status in 2013 & its rejection by UPA Government.

  • The Akhila Bharatiya Veerashaiva Mahasabha under the Presidenship of Shamanur Shivashankarappa(Congress Leader from Karnataka) made representations to the then AICC President Sonia Gandhi and Petroleum Minister Sri Veerappa Moily in the year 2013 to recognize Veerashaiva-Lingayat as a separate independent religion. Smt. Sonia Gandhi had forwarded the request to the Minister of Home Affairs Sri. Sushilkumar Shinde to adjudicate the request. However the UPA led Union Government had rejected the representation of the Mahasabha stating that “The Veerashaiva-Lingayat are a sect of Hindus and not an independent religion”.

Divisive politics of Congress in Karnataka

  • Being fully aware of the fact that the previous representations were rejected by the Central Government led by Congress and knowing fully well that the efforts to recommend a separate Lingayat religion shall not pass legal muster, Karnataka’s Chief Minister Sri Siddaramaiah devised a ploy to divide the monolithic Veerashaiva-Lingayat community with an ulterior motive of gaining unjustly during elections. In pursuance of his plan, he engineered a minuscule faction of Lingayats to make representation requesting to declare Lingayat as an independent religion and also to accord Minority status.
  • These requests were forwarded to the Minority Department of Govt. of Karnataka which in turn forwarded the same to the Karnataka State Minority Commission.
  • On 22ndDecember 2017, the Karnataka State Minority Commission constituted a 7 member Expert Committee headed by Retd. Justice Nagmohan Das to study the representations and submit a report. The members of the committee included Political scientist Muzaffar Assadi, former Chairman of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission CS Dwarakanath, Head of the Kannada Chair at JNU Purushothama Bilimale, Chairman of the Kannada Development Authority SG Siddaramaiah and senior journalist Sarjoo Katkar. Most importantly, none of these committee members belong to the Veerashaiva-Lingayat community.
  • It is also pertinent to note that all the six members of the said committee were hand-picked to suit the ideological convictions of the Chief Minister. It was clear from day one that the committee and its consultations with stakeholders was a mere procedural formality and that its mandate was prefixed by the Chief Minister.
  • On 6thJanuary 2018, the committee met for the first time and addressed a press conference and stated that the committee would need a minimum of 6 months to study the representations and submit a report. There was also a demand to add a women member to the expert committee which was not even taken into consideration.
  • However, due to the extreme pressure from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah himself, the committee declared to take up the public representations on 2nd & 3rdof February 2018. The committee further decided to scrutinize the public representations on 26th, 27th and 28th of February 2018.
  • Thereafter, without further consultations or deliberations, the committee submitted a report recommending a separate minority status for Lingayats on the ground that they do not form a part of Hindu religion and that they must be accorded the status of an independent minority religion. This recommendation was hurriedly accepted by the cabinet on 19th March 2018 and the Cabinet has taken a decision to –
  1. To accord Lingayat/VeerashaivaLingayat/ believers in Basava Philosophy as religious minority under the Karnataka State MinoritiesCommission Act.
  2. Apart from this, the State Cabinet has also decided to recommend to the Central Government for declaring Lingayat/VeerashaivaLingayat/ believers in Basava Philosophy as religious minority.
  • The decision of the cabinet shows that the intention of the Congress government is to balkanize not only the Hindu community but also to divide the monolithic Veerashaiva-Lingayat community into two. It is clear that this is done with the sole intention of breaking the powerful Veerashaiva-Lingayat vote bloc which has traditionally favored the BJP and nothing else.
  • The cabinet note also clearly mentions that the granting of independent – minority status to the Lingayat community will not provide them with constitutional benefits at the cost of upsetting the already existing minorities. The State Government has stated that the Lingayats will be eligible for reservation only under 3B category which they have already been enjoying. Thus, it is clear that in the existing reservation scheme in Karnataka, the Lingayats will not get any additional benefits that the minority status would otherwise have accrued. It goes to show that this whole exercise is mere eyewash.
  • The matter relating to recognition of a religion has always been outside the purview of the State. Religion and religious matters have to be decided by the leaders of the said community itself and not by the State. However, with an ulterior motive to gain unjustly during the upcoming elections, Chief Minister Siddaramiah has tried to divide the monolithic Veerashaiva- Lingayat community and also has made efforts to divide the Hindu society.
  • It is quite ironical that the Basava philosophy and its believers are not confined to a religion or a caste, but it is a universal philosophy applying to everyone through all walks of life. It may be pertinent to note that many persons in different social groups including SC / STs are followers of Basavatatva. But the present Congress Government, by giving it a religious colour, has sought to destroy the very basic universalism of Basava philosophy and also deprive the SC / ST their constitutional rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
  • Veerashaivas and Lingayats have been one entity ever since its existence. This was further reiterated by the 111 year old Pontiff Dr Shivakumar Swamiji of Siddaganga Mutt that Veerashaiva and Lingayats are one and the same and that there was no difference.

Legal Validity of this exercise.

 As per the National Commission for Minorities Act 1992, it is for the Central Government to recognize a pre-existing religion as a minority religion. The State Government cannot recommend the Centre to treat the Lingayat sect as a minority religion when the same is not even recognized as a distinct religion in Karnataka.

  • The Supreme Court in Bal Patil V/s Union of Indiahad observed in its Judgement dated 8.08.2005 that the primary objective of the Commissions set up for Minorities is to is to create social conditions where there remains no necessity to shield or protect rights of minority or majority. It also observed that “The Commission instead of encouraging claims from different communities for being added to a list of notified minorities under the Act, should suggest ways and means to help create social conditions where the list of notified minorities is gradually reduced and done away with altogether”
  • The extract of the Supreme Court observation is extracted hereunder –

 The constitutional ideal, which can be gathered from the group of articles in the Constitution under Chapters of Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, is to create social conditions where there remains no necessity to shield or protect rights of minority or majority.

 The above mentioned constitutional goal has to be kept in view by the Minorities Commissions set up at the Central or State levels. Commissions set up for minorities have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the minority and majority classes. If, only on the basis of a different religious thought or less numerical strength or lack of health, wealth, education, power or social rights, a claim of a section of Indian society to the status of ‘minority’ is considered and conceded, there would be no end to such claims in a society as multi-religious and multi- linguistic as India is. A claim by one group of citizens would lead to a similar claim by another group of citizens and conflict and strife would ensue. As such, the Hindu society being based on caste, is itself divided into various minority groups. Each caste claims to be separate from the other. In a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst Hindus. Many of them claim such status because of their small number and expect protection from the State on the ground that they are backward. If each minority group feels afraid of the other group, an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust would be created posing serious threat to the integrity of our Nation. That would sow seeds of multi-nationalism in India. It is, therefore, necessary that Minority Commission should act in a manner so as to prevent generating feelings of multinationalism in various sections of people of Bharat.

 The Commission instead of encouraging claims from different communities for being added to a list of notified minorities under the Act, should suggest ways and means to help create social conditions where the list of notified minorities is gradually reduced and done away with altogether.”

 Therefore it is very evident that the Congress has continued the dangerous British policy of divide and rule. Planting and instigating artificial divisions amongst the various sections of society has been practiced by the Congress since long. The recent Patel reservation movement in Gujarat and the blind support that the Congress offered and now the conspiracy of dividing the Veerashaiva and Lingayats from Hindu religion and from each other in Karnataka is a classic example of its insidious agenda of sowing seeds of divisiveness in society for petty political gain.

  • It may be concluded that the entire exercise of engineering representations from a sponsored set of people; setting up a hand-picked expert committee without a single representation from Veerashaiva-Lingayat community; the hurried manner in which the so-called expert committee submitted a report recommending independent Lingayat religion with minority status; and the Cabinet almost on cue, accepting the recommendations of the committee knowing fully well that this demand was earlier rejected by their own party led government in 2013 is a mere political gimmick with far reaching disastrous consequences for the society.
  • It is clear that this exercise is done with an ulterior motive of gaining unjustly during the upcoming assembly elections by dividing the broader Hindu community by creating unrest & uncertainties in the minds of public.
  • The BJP in Karnataka has taken a stand that both Veerashaiva and Lingayats are one & the same and that there is no difference at all in any respects between the two. The party has also taken a stand that it shall support any decision of the Veerashaiva Mahasabha and the 111 year old Siddaganga Seer on this issue.

Cultural Studies – The Academic Discipline of Anti-India Politics

  • By Prasanna Deshpande

The foundation of the academic discipline called ‘Cultural Studies’ is perhaps the most long reaching and futuristic intellectual investment of the Western Academics. Under the garb of an ultra-modern, empirical, realistic academic theories of Humanities, this discipline attempts to offer a subversive, anti-establishment, anarchist, rebellious, Marxist and communist philosophy to the young aspirants of higher education system in India.

This subject called ‘Cultural Studies’ is an engaged academic discipline which follows the legacy of the radical leftist theories and the metamorphosed versions of Marxist cannon wrapped in a culturally adaptive and workable ideological modules of communism as created by the NEW LEFT thinkers like Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart, E.P.Thompson, Raymond Williams and few other founders of the Birmingham Centre of Cultural Studies in England. This discipline has been studied and ‘practised’ all over India through following universities, most being Central Universities and research Centres or Post-Graduate Departments of Social Sciences, Anthropology, Sociology, History, Economics, Political Science, International Relations, Education Science, Humanities, Philosophy,Literary Studies, Women’s Studies, Social Change Studies , all IIT centres with Humanities Departments and so on. These centres are:

  • Department of English and cultural studies Punjab university Chandigarh.
  • Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed University for art and Culture, Thrissur, Kerala
  • Jawharlal Nehru University
  • Delhi University
  • Jadhopur University.
  • Aligarh Muslim University

The discipline works towards the motto: “Cultural Studies does not study culture, it makes one.” This pithy sentence sums up the project of cultural studies. That is, it resists the existing culture of the nation like India, subverts it, questions it, challenges the norms and deconstructs its existing discourse and establishes the ‘alternative’ of what is commonly believed on the basis of faith or tradition or what is even commonly known as history of the people or a nation. The critical writings of thinkers, researchers, theorists, scholars and professors of Cultural Studies in universities across the world (list given at the end of this paper) have been prescribed in the syllabi, either in the form of books or ‘critical essays’. Although Cultural Studies is known to be an extremely interdisciplinary academic activity, it is still grounded on some of its fundamental preamble. This fundamental commitment is nothing but the same old idea of locating an intellectual and political space for the communist ideology. The model of resistance and subversion is applied to all the ‘academic engagement’ of Cultural Studies. Be it philosophy or medical science,  music or film studies and even technology to ethics, Cultural Studies applies its model of offering an ‘alternative discourse’ to almost all the established principles of a discipline. It basically reveals the power structure of the established knowledge of a discipline and resists the ‘deterministic’ approach of ‘knowledge production’. It holds a view that all eternal, timeless values of a culture are of the ‘established’ kind which could be contested only by ‘contemporary’ modes of culture as the ‘contemporary’ modes are mostly the ‘deviant’ forms of a culture. They exploit the rebellious minds of youth by pushing them further to resist against the established mores of a culture. Cultural Hegemony can be discarded only by overemphasizing the distinctiveness of these ‘sub-cultures’ or ‘youth cultures’. Frederic Jameson, the American thinker of the same mode says, “One man’s idea of nation is another man’s hell.”             This is a camouflaged attempt of the sympathizers of communism and such divisive and anti-national tendencies of academicians to offer a more ‘customized’, culture specific modifications of Marxist, Communist political ideologies through academics. The aim of cultural studies is to destroy the indigenous culture of Bharat by creating a totally negative atmosphere in all the walks of life.

Stuart Hall, one of the founders of Cultural Studies advises students of Cultural Studies across the world that “they should not aim only at gaining ‘theoretical fluency’ in this subject. They must make an attempt to ‘practise’ what they learn and apply it to life. They must always engage themselves with what is ‘contemporary’, since the contemporary is devoid of the fundamental or eternal value system of a culture. These students should engage themselves with a process of offering derisive and subversive forms of ‘resistance’ to dominant mode of a mainstream culture.” For doing this, Cultural Studies forms a presupposition that the culture of the majority or the mainstream culture is ‘produced’ by the dominant class and is imposed on the weaker classes of the society. Hence “these identities should remain in a permanent ‘confronting’ position in its relation with its counterpart,” is the essence of the social studies of this discipline.

Any contemporary mode of culture is manifested through the youth. This manifestation is usually somewhat deviant from the primordial, eternal, timeless values of culture. So, the followers of established cultural norms would perceive this contemporary modes as somewhat ‘valueless’ or ‘casual’. This difference in the perception and execution of culture by two different generations is exploited by cultural studies as ‘suppressive established, socially controlling determinism’ of the older generations. This difference is manipulated into ‘subversion’ of cultural norms and a strategy of creating ‘alternative’ culture.

It is also important to know why this discipline is named as ‘Cultural Studies’. Knowing the academic engagement of cultural studies it is easy to understand that it mainly works on the ‘social’ aspect of everything, practically everything. For example, Cultural Studies undertakes the task of ‘socializing’ science. But it understands single logic of the ‘social’, and that logic is the denationalizing, culturally disintegrating logic of Marxist, communist’s view of the world. Hence the only ‘alternative’ that it could offer is that of the same ‘socialist revolution’. So, its primary concerns are social, with a focus on ‘power of knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of power’. In short, it aims at the incorporation of the social principle of everything and anything by exposing the power structure in order to resist and subvert it and establish the authority of the ‘communist’ point of view in the processes of nation as well as that of the state. The question still remains unanswered that why is it called ‘Cultural’, then? And also that if the world already has innumerable disciplines that study the ‘social’ why was this discipline founded? The search of answer to this may require us to understand Cultural Studies’ view of the traditional disciplines of social sciences or studies. Cultural Studies’ founding fathers maintained a stance that these traditional disciplines of Economics, Sociology, History, Political Science, Anthropology, and Philosophy maintained and projected themselves as ‘objective’ in the production of knowledge. Cultural Studies looks at the ‘objectivity of knowledge’ as a myth. According to Stuart Hall, these traditional social studies and sciences failed at many levels. They could neither ensure change nor reformation. They were highly dominated by the Western academics and hence the ‘discourse’ largely became ‘unrecognizable, unidentifiable, alien and strange’ to the non-western world. Hence these disciplines largely remained restricted to their academic and intellectual consumption. The insistence on ‘objectivity’ of this knowledge also always maintained the supremacy of the western logic through its projection of universality. Hence, these disciplines became infertile as far as the ‘leftist’ goals were concerned. Moreover, the Western academics, through these disciplines maintained the superiority of ‘an intellectual’ which largely widened the gap between actual, social realization and execution of the theories they brought out and hence people from different countries like those from India, in a majority, could never relate themselves to the ‘academic theorization’ of social politics or social change which was promised by these traditional sociological disciplines. Their ‘universality’ and ‘global’ identity largely became a hurdle in the process of absorption of diverse cultures across the world. This insistence on ‘theoretical accuracy’ narrowed the scope of actualization of these theories or of the ‘knowledge’ produced by these disciplines. Hence, a new alternative, unconventional, subversive, ‘anti-discipline’ became an intense need in the perception of these founding fathers of the Cultural Studies. Stuart Hall envisioned this discipline to be ‘subjective’ in its rationale. It is this ‘subjectivity’ of Cultural Studies which provides it a scope to customize ‘knowledge’ under its rubrics. Since the traditional ‘sociological’ disciplines and social sciences were ‘objective’ and since they failed in their pursuits, or they maintained a rational distance from Communism and Marxism, the name ‘Cultural Studies’ would seem as an ‘alternative’ to the unproductive apolitical disciplines and would adapt ‘political subjectivity’ instead of ‘academic objectivity’. So, ‘Cultural’ sounds more subjective and recognizable and identifiable than ‘social’ and also that it is concerned with the everyday life of the people(s) of the world. Stuart Hall has openly acknowledged in his essay, “ Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies”, that ‘Cultural Studies is a political discipline and it does cultural politics’. That is why the discipline is called “Cultural Studies”, which does not engage itself with the study of cultures as they are or as they have been knowing by preserving the most desired distinctiveness of them but ‘Cultural’ because it establishes a ‘new, alternative, subversive culture’ of its own ideologies and perceptions.

It is this ‘subjectivity’ which equips this discipline with an ability to resist, subvert, distort and deter the traditional, eternal, timeless values of the Hindu society. The process is simple. They simply apply the Cultural Studies or NEW LEFT ‘models’ of ideas to the ‘reality’ of Indian societal norms, beliefs, faiths and modes and manners and try to deflate and destroy the popular views of men and their work.

For example, the popular image of the great ShivajiMaharaj as a Hindu King and a saviour of Hindu people against the tyranny of a Muslim ruler is questioned, resisted, refuted by applying the ‘deconstructive’ practice of ‘reading against the grain’ and a new, alternative ‘knowledge’ of ShivajiMaharaj is being established for the last 20 years. (This politics of ideology over ShivajiMaharaj coincides with the introduction of Cultural Studies in India). So, the ‘new knowledge’ about Shivaji (They drop ‘Maharaj’) would require you to understand him as a secular, socialist leader who was utterly sympathetic to the ‘minorities’ and the ‘downtrodden’ (which is not shown by the traditional knowledge-makers). This ‘new knowledge’ would take a radically critical stand (for the sake of it because resistance is the ‘norm’ under Cultural Studies) about the existing, traditional history and go to the extent of saying that the “popular image of Shivaji as a Hindu icon was manufactured’ by the upper caste Brahmin historians who had wanted their own dignified position in the caste structure to be intact. Hence, they ‘manipulated’ facts about Shivaji and made him a saviour of ‘the cow, the Brahmin and the Dharma’. If Shivaji is long understood as a Hindu icon, Dharma will remain as supreme value and if Dharma lasts, upper castes will continue being privileged forever.” There have been attempts also to co-opt this ‘knowledge’ by the film industry and entertainment and media circuits. A similar logic of Cultural Studies is extended to the ‘alternative’ readings of Swami Vivekananda. This methodology reads the literature of Swami Vivekananda with a purpose in mind. This purpose is commonly to locate the loose strings of logic in a text and to exploit the possibility of multiple interpretations. This multiplicity results into a substitution of discourse. This is what is called ‘reading against the grain.’ This substitution is actually a political strategy of reading the text against what is primarily conveyed by it and holding the alternative meaning as its ‘deconstructive meaning’. For example, there are certain statements in the writings of Vivekananda in which he has written against the excess of rituals by Hindus, how the excessive ritualistic traditions isolate a human from the social cause, the poor and the downtrodden and so on. Such ideas in Swamiji’s writings are exploited to show the ‘socialist’ discourse in Vivekananda’s writings and to foreground and focus this ‘alternative meaning’ of Vivekananda’s writings. This is a process by which Cultural Studies attempts not to mobilize its followers on motivation sought by mentioning the names of the Western thinkers but it mobilizes them by identifying the local, culture-specific icons of nationalism and faith with an ‘alternative’ readings and understanding so that the masses would be prepared to receive this ‘new knowledge’ of the ‘known ideals’.

This relationship of the Marxist, leftist ideologies and academics has got so firmly rooted now that it will not be a surprise if the word ‘leftist’ would mean ‘academic’ in coming years (which has almost taken place even in the current times). The sheer loss due to this stronghold of ‘leftist’ academics is that the fine brains of the nation are being diverted to a divisive and socially harmful activism (of which the JNU recently provided an example). Will it not be a loss of the nation like Bharat that the talent of hundreds of thousands of promising young boys and girls of our country has been misdirected and invested into an absolutely unproductive social activism which neither ensures change nor education? Is it not detrimental to the fabric of life in Bharat to allow such dubious ideologies to spoil the career of innumerable fine youth of the nation for the realization of some preposterous idealism of ‘revolution freaks”? If we must avoid this, which we must, some fundamental reforms need to be done in the ‘social studies’ discipline. Otherwise, the college youth, whose prowess could be our strength as a nation, if not properly groomed up in its ‘ideological orientation’, may soon become our weakness. This is not just to play a victim but if we fail to address this now, even our families will not possess the strength enough to rectify this social malady.

Prasanna A. Deshpande, Assistant Professor, Department of English, Fergusson College, Pune.

Jammu Kashmir Sankalp Divas Parliament Resolution 1994

  • By Dr Gautam Mengi
    The Parliament of Republic of India Unanimously resolved on 22nd February 1994 that:-
    (a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means.
    (b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    and demands that:
    (c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that –
    (d) All attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.”
    The resolution was firm and unanimous and therefore voice of the Nation. Partition of India by the British was a punishment and curse on the Nation inflicted by the retreating British Military But declaration of unilateral ceasefire and decision to stop the advancing Indian Army and preventing retrieval of our own territories was inflicted by our own National leadership in connivance with the British and leaders of J & K State namely Pt. Nehru, Lord Mountbatten and Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah.
    Today, we cannot go back in time and reverse the clock but the nation has to think of ways and means to undo the aggression by Pakistan . Some people think that Borders cannot be redrawn and advocate accepting ‘Line of Control’ as International Border .Such people lack the courage and suffer from inertia. If Jews can get Homeland Israel after a thousand years of exile and if Berlin wall can be demolished and East and west Germany can unite. Jammu Kashmir can also be restored to its pristine glory with borders touching Afghanistan Soviet Russia Tazakistan and China.
    In order to reunite Gilgit, Baltistan Mirpur, Kotli and Mujjfrabad some concrete efforts will be required ,mere resolution will not suffice, even though the 1994 resolution by the Nation is a good beginning.
    1) First of all the Nation needs to know that 1,20,747 Sq. KM.of J & K State is occupied by the enemy. The Geography and the original boundaries of the state need to be highlighted
    2) Secondly ,there is need to educate and arouse love of their land amongst the following suffering displaced persons.
    a) Displaced persons from Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir now living in J & K and outside are about 12 lac. They migrated after tribal attacks from Mujjfrabad ,Mirpur,Kotli Bhimber,Deva batala and also from Gilgit Baltistan .They were not given the refugee status and were named displaced persons.
    b) Internally displaced Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs from Kashmir valley are about four lac. They left their home and hearth after terrorism and communal hatered gripped Kashmir Valley in 1990.
    c) About 5764 families from west Pakistan took refuge in Jammu after Partition. Their present population is about 2.5 lac.
    3) Thirdly, the people living under illegal occupation of Pakistan are deprived of their democratic rights. POJK is Ruled by Rules of Business. There is no freedom of expression. No press freedom, Pakistan is bent upon changing demography of Gilgit Baltistan by flooding in people from other areas. There is need to connect with these groups of population and support their aspirations and human rights.
    4) And finally, military intervention will be required to get back the lost territories.
    Today is the day to remind our national and the State leadership to wake up and accept the challenge to regain the lost territories and the people which were our own only some time ago.

(The author is former President Jammu Kashmir Study Centre).

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay – The embodiment of Bharatiya Nationalism

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya (September 25, 1916 – February 11, 1968) was an Indian philosopher, economist,sociologist, historian, journalist, and political activist. He was one of the most important leaders of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the forerunner of the present day Bharatiya Janata Party. A revered icon of Integral Humanism, he was an ideologue and a guiding force for a alternative model of governance and politics.


D-  Manish Mokshagundam

The embodiment of Bharatiya Nationalism, Deendayalji exemplifies the pinnacle of Indian civilisation. He personified the ideal Swayamsevak through his actions, words and spirit. His achievements and contributions as an organiser, social thinker, economist, educationalist, politician, writer, journalist and speaker continue to be the yardstick of every nationalist. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyayji’s life is a true refinement of altruistic Dharma and reflection of 5000 years of continuum of Indian cultural values.

A bright star in the pantheon of Indian Nationalistic leaders, Deendayalji is the ideal representative of Indian values in politics. A gift from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to the political sphere after India’s independence, Deendayalji was directed by Guruji Golwalkar to take up mentoring of the nationalist political party, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, started by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee in 1951.

A pure spirit of Dharma, Deendayal Upadhyay was the greatest votary of Indianizing western concepts of democracy and governance. He was of the opinion that  the basic tenets of democracy in the west were a reaction to oligarchy, exploitations and capitalism and he advocated adoption of Indian principles of statecraft from the Vedas, Puranas, Dharma Shastras and other cultural knowledge systems.

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay was an organiser par excellence and a prominent leader of Bharatiya Jana Sangh. He maintained the highest standards of personal integrity and was the source of strength for all subsequent leaders’ actions, ideological guidance and moral inspiration. His treatise on ‘Integral Humanism’ is a critique of both communism and capitalism, advocating a holistic alternative perspective for political action and statecraft consistent with the laws of creation and the universal needs of the human race. This constitutes the basic political philosophy of the Bhartiya Janata Party also.


He was born on 25th September, 1916 in the village Nagla Chandrabhan (now known as Deendayal Dham) of Mathura District, Uttar Pradesh. Deendayal Upadhyay, fondly known as Deena belonged to a family of distinguished individuals. His great-grandfather, Pandit Hariram Upadhyay was a legendary astrologer. His father, Sri Bhagwati Prasad, was an assistant station master at Jalesar and his mother Shrimati Rampyari was a pious lady.

However, Deendayalji’s formative years were full of personal tragedies.  His father died when he was less than three years old, and his mother died before he was eight. He was then brought up by his maternal uncle. Deendayalji also had a younger brother named Shivdayal who too was taken away by smallpox inspite of dedicated efforts by Deendayalji to save him.. Thus, Deendayalji, who was only 18 years of age,had become a complete orphan.

Deendayalji’s life then turned nomadic and he left for high school studies in Sikar from where he matriculated. He stood first in the board exam and the then ruler of Sikar, Maharaja Kalyan Singh, presented him with a gold medal, a monthly scholarship of 10 rupees and an additional 250 rupees towards his books, as recognition of his merit. Deendayalji passed his Intermediate Board Exam in 1937 from GD Birla college, Pilani which later would become the prestigious Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS PILANI). He graduated in first division from Sanatan Dharma College, Kanpur 1939 and joined St. John’s College, Agra to pursue a Master’s degree in English literature. In the first year, he obtained first division marks, but was unable to appear for the final year exam on account of a cousin’s illness.

His maternal uncle persuaded him to sit for the Provincial Services Exam, which he passed and he was selected after an interview. He chose not to join the Provincial services, as he was fascinated with the idea of working with the common man. At the instance of his aunt, he took a Government conducted competitive exam in Dhoti and Kurta with a cap on his head, while other candidates wore western suits. The candidates in jest called him “Panditji” – an appellation millions were to use with respect and admiration in later years. Again in this exam he topped the list. Armed with his uncle’s permission he moved to Prayag to pursue B.T. His love for studies increased manifold after he entered public service. His special areas of interest were sociology and philosophy, seeds of which were sown during his student days.

Deendayalji’s tough childhood and his capabilities to raise above personal sufferings strengthened his personality beyond the ordinary; we see the impact of this strength of character in every action that followed later on in his life.



While he was a student at Sanatan Dharma College, Kanpur in 1937, he came into contact with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) through his classmate Baluji (Balwant) Mahashabde. There he met the founder of the RSS, Dr. Hedgewar (Doctorji), this was the turning point in Deendayalji’s life. Doctorji used to stay at the same hostel and invited Deendayalji for an intellectual discussion at one of the Shakhas. Deendayaljiwas so impressed by the intellectual stimulation of Sangh and Shakha that he decided to  associate himself with this noble Organisation. He continued to engage with RSS throughout his college life.

Deendayalji earned his B.T. Degree from Prayag and decided not to take a job. He had attended the 40-day summer vacation RSS camp at Nagpur where he underwent training in Sangh Education and dedicated himself to full-time work in the RSS from 1942. The frail Deendayal; could not however, withstand the physical rigour of the training but was outstanding in the educational segment. He completed the second-year training in the RSS Education Wing, to become  a lifelong Pracharak of the RSS. He lived this life till the very end.

Deendayalji worked full-time for the RSS and moved to Lakhimpur District in UP as an organiser and in 1955 became the Provincial Organiser of the RSS in UP. He was sent to guide indian politics through RSS and became the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, and later its President. His life was thus an embodiment of thorough political thought process.


A Brilliant Journalist, Deendayalji steered the Nationalistic thought through his contributions to publications like Rastradharma, Swadesh, Organiser, Panchajanya. His popular column ‘Political Diary’ was later published a best-selling book. He authored several classical books that remain even to this day, the most important for Indian nationalists.

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay established the publishing house ‘Rashtra Dharma Prakashan’ in 1940 at Lucknow and launched the monthly magazine ‘Rashtra Dharma’ to propound the principles he held sacred. Primarily it was meant for spreading the ideology of nationalism. Though he did not have his name printed as editor in any of the issues of this publication, there was hardly any issue which did not have his long-lasting impression due to his thought provoking writings. During his time withRSS, he started a weekly, ‘Panchjanya’ and a daily, ‘Swadesh’. He contributed extensively to the magazine, ‘Organiser’.

His message and mantra for the Media and journalists was crystal clear, “Don’t Distort The News”. Here is an anecdote to elucidate this; in 1961 the Railways employees called for a national strike with was supported by Jana Sangha but criticised by the RSS magazine, Panchjanya. This led to a strong attack by the Congress mouth piece magazine Navajivan against the Jana Sangha leaders.  Deendayalji intervened as the General Secretary and cleared the issue with his statement thus “”If something is in the interest of Party but not in the interest of nation, then what should be done? The Party might have certain compulsions to support the strike but Panchjanya should not have any such compulsion. I think everybody has taken right decision in their position. Parties cannot be larger than the society or the country. The national interest should get top priority. A journalist should be loyal to the country.” Priceless guidelines for the journalist fraternity.


He also wrote the drama “Chandragupta Maurya” and penned the biography of Shankaracharya in Hindi. He translated the biography of RSS founder Dr. K. B. Hedgewar from Marathi to Hindi. His other renowned literary works include Samrat Chandragupta (1946), Jagatguru Sankaracharya (1947), Akhand Bharat Kyon? (1952), Bharatiya Arthniti: Vikas Ki Disha (1958), The Two Plans: Promises, Performances, Prospects (1958), Rashtra Jivan Ki Samasyayen (1960), Devaluation: A Great Fall (1966), Political Diary (1968), Rashtra Chintan, Integral Humanism and Rashtra Jivan Ki Disha.


Deendayalji shaped Nationalism into the democratic Gestalt by incorporating concepts from Vedic Sabhas and Samitis. As General Secretary of Bharatiya Jana Sangh,the principle opposition party, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Indianised the ideas of leadership and governance.

In 1950, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, then Minister at the Center, opposed the Nehru-Liaquat pact and resigned his Cabinet post and joined the opposition to build a common front of democratic forces. Dr. Mookerjee sought Shri Guruji’s help in organizing dedicated young men to pursue the work at the political level. Bharatiya Jana Sangh was founded in 1951 by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, wherein Deendayal Upadhyay was appointed as the first General Secretary. Pandit Deendayalji’s organising skills were unmatched. He continued to hold this position until the 14th Cabinet session in December 1967. His immense intelligence and perfectionism impressed Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee so much that he was honoured with a famous statement by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee:

“If I had two Deendayals, I could transform the political face of India!”

However, the sudden and untimely death of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee in 1953 left the entire responsibilities and burden of the organisation on the young shoulders of Deendayalji.

Stalwart Statesman

Deendayalji served as the General Secretary of Bharatiya Jana Sangh for nearly 15 years from its inception and raised the organisation with high spirits and enthusiasm, thereby making it one of India’s strongest political parties. At the 14th annual session of Bharatiya Jana Sangh in Calicut in December 1967, Pandit Deendayalji was elected as the National President.

The original Poll Pandit

Deendayalji analysed the gains and losses of each party after every election. He also discussed the new emerging factors. Regarding the maintenance of democratic norms and expressing his concerns about new realities; thus we can say that he was also one the first psephologists of India.

Creator of the party with a difference

“The base of Jana Sangh being basically principled, we urgently require such training camps and workshops. Without these, we shall not be able to assess the different approaches of other political parties” – Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay


“Dharma wields its own power. Dharma is important in life. Shri Ramdas would as well have preached to Shivaji to become a mendicant and spread Dharma following his own example. But on the contrary, he inspired Shivaji to extend his rule; because the State too, is an important institution of the society.” – Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay

Deendayalji was convinced that India as an independent nation cannot rely upon Western concepts on individualism, democracy, socialism, communism, capitalism etc. to which Indian National Congress succumbed to remain in power. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaywanted to raise and grow India on the basis of its rich culture and not on western concepts left by the British at the time of their departure from the nation. Although democracy was established in India instantly after independence, Deendayalji was a little apprehensive about this development of India after these long years of slavery.

However, he believed that democracy was India’s birthright and not a gift of the West. He was of the view that the Indian polity after independence has been raised upon these superficial Western foundations and not rooted in the timeless traditions of India’s ancient culture. He was sure that the Indian intellect was getting suffocated by Western theories and ideologies and consequently there was a big roadblock on the growth and expansion of original Bharatiya thought.

He welcomed modern technology/science but wanted it to be adapted to suit Indian requirements. Panditji believed in a constructive approach. He exhorted his followers to co-operate with the government when it was right and fearlessly oppose it, when it erred. He placed nation’s interest above everything else. The following rousing call he gave to the thousands of delegates in the Calicut session, still rings in their ears:

“We are pledged to the service not of any particular community or section but of the entire nation, every countryman is blood of our blood and flesh of our flesh. We shall not rest till we are able to give to every one of them a sense of pride that they are children of BharathMata. We shall make Mother India Sujala & Sufala(flowing with water and laden with fruits) in the real sense of these words. As Dashapraharana Dharini Durga ( Godess Durga with her 10 weapons), she would be able to vanquish evil; as Lakshmi she would be able to disburse prosperity all over and as Sarasvati she would dispel the gloom of ignorance and spread the radiance of knowledge all around her. With faith in ultimate victory, let us dedicate ourselves to this task”.


“Neither possible nor wise to adopt foreign -Isms in our country in the original form in toto nor can we ignore altogether the developments in other societies, past or present and is certainly unwise”

– Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay

Deendayal Upadhyay conceived the political philosophy known as “Integral Humanism” which was adopted by Jana Sangh in 1965 as it’s official doctrine. It contains a vision organised around two themes:1) Morality in politics and 2) Swadeshi.

These ideas revolve around the basic themes of harmony, primacy of cultural-national values and discipline. According to Deendayalji, the primary concern in India must be to develop an indigenous economic model that puts the human being at center-stage. Integral Humanism is an alternative to both western capitalist individualism and Marxist Socialism.

The philosophy of Integral Humanism advocates the simultaneous and integrated fuctioning of the body, mind, intellect and soul of each human being. It is a synthesis of the material and the spiritual, the individual and the collective, . In the field of politics and economics, Deendayaljiwas pragmatic and down to earth. He visualised  India as a decentralised polity and self-reliant economy with the village as the base.

“Integral Humanism must necessarily make a balanced appraisal of both Bharatiya as well as Western ideologies. On the basis of this evaluation it seeks to show a way which would make man progress further from his present position of thought, experience and achievement. The Western world has achieved great material progress but in the field of spiritual attainment it has not been able to make much headway. India on the other hand lags far behind in material advancement and so its spiritualism has become a hollow-sounding word. There can be no spiritual salvation without material prosperity. It is necessary, therefore, that we strive for strength, and material happiness, so that we may be able to build up national health and contribute to the progress of the world, instead of being a burden on it. Integral Humanism is the ideal which determines our direction which has to be translated into practice. Our program, therefore, has to be grounded in realism. Indeed, realism is the forte of our program, the measure of our achievements and the touchstone of our ideal.”

This concept of Integral Humanism, which is deeply embedded in the Indian psyche, became the guiding philosophy of the Bharatiya Jana Sangha (Now the Bharatiya Janata Party).


Deendayalji’s life was a dedicated life. He has sacrificed every atom of his body and every moment of his life at the altar of nationalism. On 11th Feb1968, his ‘almost dead’ body was found on the railway tracks of Mughalsarai station. Two men were arrested; they confessed to have pushed Upadhyaya out of the train apparently because he had caught them stealing his bag and had threatened to report them to the police. But they were both later acquitted of the murder charge due to lack of evidence. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay’s death is thus still shrouded in mystery even after the CBI enquiry and the one-man Commission of Justice YV Chandrachud..

Deendayalji was active in India’s political life from 1937 to 1968. He emerged as an all-round national leader but when this seasoned leader emerged as President of his party, destiny took him away to a mysterious and tragic end. He was the Jana Sangh President for only 43 days when around 3.45 a.m. on 11th Feb 1968, the lever-man at the Mughalsarai station informed the Assistant Station Master (ASM) that about 150 yards from the station, towards the south of the railway line, a dead body was lying near the electric pole.

The police was alerted and the doctor was brought in the morning who examined the body and declared it dead. When the dead body was brought to the station, a curious crowd gathered there. Till now, the dead body was unclaimed. Then one person in the crowd shouted, “This is the Bharatiya Jan Sangh President, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay.”

The parliamentary committee was in session at Delhi. It was adjourned and all the leaders reached Delhi where his body was brought. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay used to stay at parliamentarian Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s residence at 30, Rajendra Prasad Marg. His dead body was brought there. Guruji Golwalkar was already in Delhi because of his closeness toDeendayalji. Generally unperturbed, Guruji Golwalkar, when he approached Deendayalji’s dead body, his eyes filled with tears and he could only say in a choked voice,

“Oh what has happened to him! Many people run families, they can imagine the loss. Since I do not run a family, my sorrow is hundred fold. I won’t say anything about our personal relations. All that I can say is, those whom the Gods love, die young.”

Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s sentiments were expressed through the article, ‘We accept the challenge’, thus:

“The attack on his life is an attack on our nationalism. The wounds on his body are assaults on our democracy. We accept this challenge of anti-nationals and enemies of democracy”

The entire nation was plunged in grief, all volunteers of Bharatiya Jana Sangh and RSS were stunned. Who was the murderer that had so cruelly taken the life of sage like Deendayalji, who did not have a single enemy in the world? There was no answer. His death was as shocking as it was mysterious.

One wonders how all this could have occurred; this is a matter of investigation.The first Jana Sangh President, Dr. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, was also victim of a political murder. That mystery also remains unsolved to this day. Perhaps it will never be solved.




Samrat Chandragupta (1946)

Jagatguru Sankaracharya (1947)

Akhand Bharat Kyon? (1952)

Bharatiya Arthniti: Vikas Ki Disha (1958)

The Two Plans: Promises, Performances, Prospects (1958)

Rashtra Jivan Ki Samasyayen (1960)

Devaluation: A Great Fall (1966)

Political Diary (1968)

Rashtra Chintan

Integral Humanism

Rashtra Jivan Ki Disha


Life and Works of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya by S.R. Sharma

Deen Dayal Upadhyay (Hindi) by Harish Dutt Sharma

Deendayal Upadhyaya: Ideology and Perception, comprising seven volumes by Suruchi Prakashan

Ekatma manavvaad – collection of essays on “integral humanism”