This is still a nightmare scenarios for every raving Nehruvian secularist

Anonymous said...

Let us not selectively quote Sri Aurobindo to support our own prejudicial views. In the same article where Sri Aurobindo has supposedly 'opposed the very idea' of Hindu Rashtra we find the following in his concluding remarks.

"Our ideal therefore is an Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists, by the greatness of his past, his civilisation and his culture and his invincible virility, in holding it, but wide enough also to include the Moslem and his culture and traditions and absorb them into itself."

Note that the ideal Indian nationalism is still LARGELY Hindu in its spirit and traditions and also that the Islamic culture is ABSORBED in it, rather than separate from it or hostile to it. This is still very much a Hindu Rashtra in spirit and traditions. This is still a nightmare scenarios for every raving Nehruvian secularist.

What Sri Aurobindo is opposed to is an exclusive Hindu Rashtra based on medieval principles in which other traditions have no place at all. The modern conception of Hindu Rastra, on the contrary, is exactly that of a secular state in the service of India's spiritual traditions and ideals. It is not a theocratic state based on Hindu laws and customs. It has a place for Islam as long as it consents to be absorbed into the mainstream of the Hindu Rashtra rather than seeking to separate itself from it or dominate it. 1:52 AM, December 28, 2007