'Bharatiyata' only solution to all problems world facing today: RSS chief Bhagwat
Addressing an event here, Mr. Bhagwat said the world is facing a plethora of problems due to materialism and now looking up to Bharat for answers as all the efforts taken over the past 2000 years to bring happiness and contentment in people's lives based on Western ideas have failed.
All the advancements in the field of science and economic progress in the world brought things of luxury and eased people's lives but could not end sorrow, he said.
'Exploitation increased, poverty increased. The gap between the poor and the rich kept increasing day by day,' Mr. Bhagwat said at the event jointly organised by IGNOU and Akhil Bharatiya Anuvrat Nyas.
'After the first world war, several books were written advocating peace, a league of nations was formed so that there is no war again in future but the World War II broke out. After the second world war, UNO was formed. But we are (today) thinking if there will be a third world war,' he added.
Bhagwat said 'Bharatiyata' (Indianness) is the only solution to all the problems the world is facing today.
'What does it mean to be of Bharat? Bharatiyata is not citizenship. Of course, citizenship is required. But, one has to have Bharat's 'swabhav' (nature) to belong to Bharat. Bharat's 'swabhav' thinks about the whole life. There are four 'Purusharth' (four goals in Hindu philosophy)...'moksha' (liberation) is ultimate goal of life,' he said.
Bharat's nature is based on 'dharma drishti' (vision), Mr. Bhagwat said.
It is due to this discipline of dharma, Bharat was once the most prosperous nation and the world knows it, he said.
'That's why the world looks up to Bharat, hoping that it will show a new path to them. We have to show the path to the world. For this, we have to prepare our 'rashtra' (nation), starting with ourselves and our family,' Mr. Bhagwat said. 'See if we are following our 'drishti' (vision) in our daily life or not, and make amends,' he added.
Exhorting the gathering to 'gear up' for transformation, Mr. Bhagwat said, 'The history that we know is taught by the West. I am hearing that some changes are being made in the syllabus in our country'.
'For them, Bharat does not exist. It appears in the world map, but not in their thoughts. If you look at books, you will find China, Japan, not Bharat,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump announces 25% tariff on India starting August 1
US President Donald Trump announced that a 25% tariff on imports from India will take effect beginning August 1, citing what he described as unfair trade practices and India's continued ties with Russia read more US President Donald Trump announced that a 25% tariff on imports from India will take effect beginning August 1, citing what he described as unfair trade practices and India's continued ties with Russia. In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump acknowledged India as a 'friend' but criticised the country's high tariffs and stringent non-monetary trade barriers, calling them 'among the highest in the world' and 'obnoxious.' 'We have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their tariffs are far too high,' Trump posted on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine — all things not good!' he added. Trump said that, in addition to the 25% tariff, India would face a penalty for what he described as 'unfair' trade behavior and continued support of Russia amid its war in Ukraine. The new trade measures are set to be implemented on August 1. The announcement comes as India maintains a neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict and continues to engage in defense and energy trade with Moscow, despite Western pressure to reduce ties with Russia. With inputs from agencies
India Today
40 minutes ago
- India Today
Why RSS icon MS Golwalkar favoured Hindi as India's official language
Amidst the raging debate over a perceived imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states, critics of the BJP claim that pushing Hindi at the cost of other languages and dialects has been one of the core agendas of the party and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).A study of the works of Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, aka 'Guruji', reveals that the second sarsanghachalak of the RSS, who was at the helm of the organisation from 1940 to 1973 and had a foundational influence over its ideology, favoured Hindi as India's official language. Golwalkar felt that a Sanskritised version of Hindi should be used till the time Sanskrit, which he described as the 'queen of languages' and one of the 'greatest cementing factors of our national life', became a common language. He was also insistent that English, which he viewed as a relic of India's colonial past, not be a compulsory language in is central to the Hindutva project of the RSS. As Alok Rai says in his book Hindi Nationalism: 'The process of the making of modem 'Hindi' and the making of 'the Hindu community' are related in complex ways. This is not to suggest that I have found in 'Hindi' the master key to the pan-Indian phenomenon of 'Hindutva' in this century. Still, 'Hindi' offers some valuable insights into the wider phenomenon.'This is evident in the writings of Golwalkar, who was heavily influenced by European ideas of the nation state, which are based on a shared religion, national identity, language and culture. 'As a solution to the problem of lingua franca, till the time Sanskrit takes that place, we shall have to give priority to Hindi on the score of convenience. Naturally we have to prefer that form of Hindi which like all other Bharatiya languages, stems from Sanskrit and gets sustenance from Sanskrit for its future growth in all fields of modern knowledge like science and technology. It does not mean that Hindi is the only national language or that it is the oldest or richest of all our languages. In fact, Tamil is a much richer and older language. But Hindi has come to be the spoken language of a large section of our people and is the easiest of all our languages for learning and speaking,' Golwalkar wrote in his book Bunch of Thoughts (1966).'We have therefore to take Hindi in the interest of national unity and self- respect and not allow ourselves to be swept off our feet by slogans like 'Hindi imperialism' or 'domination of the North', etc Any apprehensions of encroachment for dominance over other languages by Hindi are therefore pure fiction cooked up by interested politicians. In fact, with rise of Hindi, all our sister languages also will flourish. The enemy of all our Bharatiya languages is English,' he said in the book.'In fact, all our languages, whether Tamil or Bengali, Marathi or Punjabi, are our national languages. All these languages and dialects are like so many flowers shedding the same rich fragrance of our national culture. The source of inspiration for all these has been the queen of languages, the language of gods—Sanskrit. By virtue of its richness and sacred association, it also can serve as the common medium of our national intercourse. Nor is it difficult to acquire a working knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is to this day one of the greatest cementing factors of our national life. But, unfortunately, it is not in common usage now nor do our present rulers possess the moral pride and grit to bring it into vogue,' he are some who desire that English continue as the 'lingua franca' for all time to come. Language being a living medium of human intercourse, the foreign language English is bound to bring in its English culture and English life patterns. Allowing foreign life patterns to take root here would mean the undermining of our own culture and dharma,' said Golwalkar. He described the use of English as 'just an artificial imposition that accompanied the English domination and as such must be thrown off now that we have become free'.Golwalkar was also critical of Tamil and Dravidian sub-nationalism. 'These days we are hearing much about Tamil. Some protagonists of Tamil claim it is a distinct language altogether with a separate culture of its own. They disclaim faith in the Vedas, saying that Tirukkural is their distinct scripture. Tirukkural is undoubtedly a great scriptural text more than two thousands year old,' said Golwalkar in the book. He, however, extolled Tirukkural as 'purely a Hindu text propounding great Hindu thoughts in a chaste Hindu language'.In an interview to the Organiser in December 1957, Golwalkar was asked if learning four languages—the mother tongue, Hindi, Sanskrit and English—were a too many for students. This is reminiscent of the controversy over the introduction of Hindi as a third language in schools in Maharashtra from Standard I onwards. Golwalkar replied that 'the most dispensable of the four is English. It should not be a compulsory language'.advertisementWhile speaking to reporters in April 1966 in Delhi, Golwalkar was asked if the imposition of Hindi would be detrimental to the oneness of the country. 'Well, if you think that introduction of any one of our languages is detrimental to the interests of the country, do you go to the other corollary that a foreign language is conducive? If that is not so, do we not require a language of our own for communicating our ideas and thoughts, and for mutual intercourse, which will be common to all of us throughout the country? From this point of view, Hindi is the easiest to learn and it is also already spoken and understood in various parts of the country. Therefore, we say that Hindi should be there. There is no question of posing that one language is superior to another,' he his book We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939), Golwalkar held that there is 'but one language, Sanskrit, of which these many 'languages' are mere offshoots' He added that 'even among the modern languages Hindi is the most commonly understood and used as a medium of expression between persons of different provinces'.advertisement'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 and Hindu Language (the natural family of Sanskrit and her offsprings) complete the Nation concept... All those not belonging to the national i.e. Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language, naturally fall out of the pale of real 'National' life,' wrote the postulation of Hindi being the language of a majority of Indians has been dispelled by many, such as author and cultural activist G.N. Devy, who points out that according to the 2011 Census, the country over had 528 million Hindi language speakers. This figure combined 206.1 million people whose mother tongues had been grouped under the Hindi language as its variants. This included Bhojpuri, with over 50.5 million speakers, Chhattisgarhi (16.2 million), Kumauni (2.08 million). So, if these 206.1 million people were subtracted from the number of Hindi speakers, their numbers dropped to just around 320 million. Considering that the Census had a base of 1,210 million, this meant that barely a fourth of the population spoke Mukhopadhyay, author and journalist, who has written extensively on the Hindu right, said that the historical backdrop of the launch and growth of the RSS should be accounted for while considering its advocacy of Hindi. The RSS was founded in 1925 in Maharashtra, but towards the late 1930s, was looking at branching out. The Hindi-speaking areas were most easily accessible for the Sangh.'Then, the Indo-Gangetic plains up were witnessing intense linguistic politics over Urdu. The period also saw growing support for the two-nation theory, where Urdu was reduced to being a language of the Muslims, and Hindi that of the Hindus. The RSS found a strong connect between language, religion and culture. This gave rise to slogans of 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan', where Hindustan was perceived as the land of the Hindus and not as a poetic imagination,' Mukhopadhyay credo became more rooted post-Independence when debates over the national language were taking place in the Constituent Assembly, and there was an agitation in Tamil Nadu against the imposition of Hindi. It was in that period that the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the present-day BJP, advocated Hindi as the national the Ram Mandir agitation was a north Indian movement, with Hindi being a part of the protests and its vocabulary. But when the BJP was consciously trying to broad-base itself and expand in southern states like Karnataka, it had to step down on its insistence for Hindi. 'The promotion of Hindi remains part of the political instinct of a majority of BJP leaders, who hail from northern and western India,' said Mukhopadhyay.'It is their basic commitment, but it cannot push Hindi beyond a point to fulfil their objective of being a pan-Indian party. Hindi remains part of their idea of a collective nation, the idea that we are one in terms of religion, language and culture. The categories of religion and culture are not segregated in their minds. They see Hindi as the language of Hinduism as a culture, and not a religion,' he explained.'The RSS's 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan' ideal draws heavily from the European model of nationalism,' said Abhishek Choudhary, author of a two-volume biography of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. 'The Sangh Parivar opposed the linguistic reorganisation of states both in principle and practice. During the first wave of statehood movements in the early 1950s—the earliest expression of sub-nationalism in independent India—Vajpayee toured the country warning that linguistic states would lead to the fragmentation of the nation. On this issue, Hindu nationalists and conservative elements within the Congress found common ground in their support for promoting Hindi,' said to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
The West Botched Up Russia ... And Now Wants India To Foot The Bill
Both the US and the EU seek to offload onto our backs some of their continuing failures in dealing with Russia. They have imposed a series of draconian sanctions on Russia for intervening militarily in Ukraine, but these have not caused the economic collapse of the country as they thought it would. The objective of the US and the EU has been to deprive Russia of financial resources to continue its military operations in Ukraine, given that the export of oil and gas is Russia's main source of state revenue. In 2022, the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up to break the expanding energy link between Russia and Europe. Double Standards The EU has since 2022 progressively reduced the purchase of Russian oil and gas in line with its decision to end its energy dependence on the country. The goal is to end all such purchases, though oil, gas and, especially, refined products, continue to flow to Europe from Russia. This has, of course, opened up Europe to the charge of double standards when they exhort other countries to end oil and gas trade with Russia. To avoid a steep rise in oil prices that would damage the global economy and raise the prices at the pump also for Western consumers, a 'via media' of a price cap of $60 per barrel was put on Russian crude oil on December 5, 2022. On February 5, 2023, this was extended to refined petroleum products. The aim was to prevent an oil price shock as well as to put a squeeze on Russia's oil earnings. This cap also prohibited participating countries from providing shipping, insurance, and other services for Russian oil sold above this price, as also prevent Russia from chartering or insuring oil tankers unless they complied with these limits. As it happens, 90% of shipping insurers are Western. All these measures were intended to force countries to buy Russian crude, etc., only at that capped price if they wanted to avoid reprisals. Russia's Shadow Fleets Russia has tried to circumvent these sanctions on shipping by creating a so-called "shadow fleet" of oil tankers, numbering anything from 400 to 1,400, to ply its oil trade with non-Western countries. This fleet is now being targeted by the EU and the UK. There is, of course, no legal basis for these restrictions. India had come under pressure in 2022 itself to condemn Russia and end oil trade with it. We were being accused of helping finance Russia's war against Ukraine. We were told that we should take a moral position and be on the right side of history. This was total hypocrisy from our point of view, as the history that we have experienced was marked by centuries of colonial depredations and decades of Western sanctions because of our refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept international control over our nuclear and missile programmes. India's Interests In Russia India has invested heavily in Russia's oil sector. In fact, the biggest investment India has made in the hydrocarbon sector abroad has been in Russia. As of October 2023, India's investments in Russia were estimated to be USD 16 billion. In turn, Russian oil producer Rosneft gained access to India's fuel retail market when it completed a USD 12.9 billion deal to acquire private refiner Essar Oil in 2017. Rosneft announced in May this year that India was a "strategic partner", and that it was cooperating with Indian companies in "production, oil refining and trading of oil and petroleum products". India began importing large volumes of Russian oil after its military operation against Ukraine in February 2022, which attracted massive Western oil sanctions, which compelled it to explore other markets. India, the world's third-largest oil-consuming and -importing nation, saw an opportunity to obtain oil at discounted prices that Russia was offering. India's position has been very clear and firm from the beginning, viz., that India is hugely dependent on imported energy, that the price of oil plays a vital role in its economy, that its primary responsibility is towards its own people, and that in accordance with its national interest it would buy oil from the cheapest available source. New Delhi Has Done Nothing Illegal India does not recognise the legal validity of sanctions unless they are approved by the UN. In any case, in buying Russian oil, India has not violated any lawful sanctions. It has also bought Russian oil below the price cap imposed by the West. It is true that before February 2022, only 2% of its oil imports came from Russia. Since then, Russia has become India's biggest oil supplier, with 40% of our supplies coming from that country. India has saved billions in buying discounted Russian oil, saving over USD 25 billion in FY24 alone. India's total trade with Russia stands at $65.69 billion, largely accounted for by the oil trade. The West has grudgingly recognised its inability to persuade India not to buy Russian oil. However, anti-Russian Western lobbies have not given up their quest to apply pressure on India, seeing that the West's goal of imposing a strategic defeat on Russia has proved illusory. To the contrary, a strategic victory of Russia in Ukraine seems to be on the cards. With no new options available, these lobbies continue to rely on the failed instrument of imposing even more sanctions on Russia. Their frustration leads them to target the biggest buyers of Russian oil. The West's Arrogance Diehard US senators like Lindsey Graham and Max Blumenthal, who are pathologically anti-Russian, are moving legislation (S.1241 - Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025) to impose 500% tariffs on all goods and services imported into the United States from countries that knowingly engage in the exchange of Russian-origin uranium and petroleum products. They have singled out India, China and Brazil by naming them in their public statements. Lindsey Graham claims that he has worked with Trump to highlight the merits of this legislation, pointing out to him that the proposed legislation carries a waiver clause that would allow the US president discretion in the application of these tariffs. Even conceiving of such a move reflects the arrogance of power and a sense of impunity that marks the thinking of some elements in America's political class. It also shows a void in geopolitical thinking. This move has come when Trump is negotiating a trade deal with China. The two have reached an interim agreement that involves US concessions in the face of China's readiness to deny the US access to some critical materials, etc. In such a situation, the threat to apply 500% tariffs on China if it buys Russian oil confounds common sense, especially as China is connected with oil and gas pipelines to Russia. Political Myopia Similarly, India and the US are negotiating an interim trade deal, pending a multi-sectoral trade agreement to be negotiated by autumn this year, when the Quad summit is scheduled in Delhi and which Trump is expected to attend. Trump seems to be following the India-US trade negotiations as he has been publicly alluding to their progress. In the joint statement issued at the end of Modi's visit to the US in February this year, the goal of expanding bilateral trade to USD 500 billion by 2030 is envisaged. In that perspective, to lose sight of the larger US-India relationship and threaten New Delhi with 500% tariffs on a peripheral issue of India-Russia oil trade shows remarkable political vacuousness. India has reacted cautiously to the Graham-Blumenthal initiative, stating that we have not ignored it and that our ambassador in Washington is in touch with the senators to provide a briefing on India's energy needs, etc. India has levers to use against Graham and Blumenthal, as the Air India Boeing 787 that crashed and the 20 new 787s ordered by Air India are manufactured in Graham's home state of South Carolina; Connecticut, which is the home state of Blumenthal, has a large number of Indian students. One hopes that the India-American community in the US is being galvanised to put some pressure on these two senators. NATO's Inexplicable Entry Trump also waded into the matter in mid-July by announcing that he was giving Putin 50 days to enter into peace talks with Ukraine or face what he called "secondary tariffs" of 100% as well as secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil. Rather surprisingly, NATO Secretary General Rutte has backed this threat and has warned India to heed this warning of secondary sanctions. NATO has no locus standi in the matter, and Rutte's remarks seem to suggest, most objectionably, that NATO's remit covers India too. India has rejected Rutte's remarks by stating that securing the energy needs of our people is our overriding priority and that we are guided by the market and prevailing global circumstances. We have warned against double standards, having in mind that Europe is still buying oil and gas from Russia. Turkey, for example, is a major buyer. So, is the NATO Secretary General threatening implicitly US sanctions on a NATO member? EU Has Something To Say, Too The EU has also taken the highly retrograde step of imposing in its 18th round of sanctions on Russia, as well as sanctions on Nayara, an Indian refinery which is a major buyer of Russian oil and which is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. The new measures include asset freezes, limits on financial and shipping services, and bans on importing petroleum products that are refined from Russian oil, even if processed in third countries such as India. India has slammed the latest EU sanctions, stating that it does not subscribe to any unilateral sanctions measures, that we remain fully committed to our legal obligations, and that we consider the provision of energy security to meet the basic needs of our people of paramount importance. India has reminded the EU that there should be no double standards when it comes to energy trade. All this points to how terribly the West has mismanaged the Ukraine conflict and continues to do so. India must steer its strategic course astutely as the US under Trump is causing huge disruptions and Europe is increasingly in disarray. Our relationship with both the US and Europe as well as with Russia is most important, and hence the challenge ahead. (Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.) Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
