Reaction, Revolution and Dharma Renaissance:
The Case of “Hindu” Nationalism
By Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya
The following article is from chapter 2 of the groundbreaking new political work “The Dharma Manifesto”, by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.
“Every major question in history is a religious question. It has more effect in molding life than nationalism or a common language.”
– Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)
The following paper will examine the Indian social movement known variously as “Hindu” Nationalism, or “Hindutva”.
The overtly political aspects of the ongoing Hindu renaissance that has been haphazardly developing for the last approximately 135 years, along with its repeated failure to secure its self-stated aim of instantiating Rama-rajya (Dharmic rule) on the political scene, are crucial topics that very few Hindu intellectuals have addressed in an ideologically cogent and politically mature manner. Some of the few intellectual leaders who have, in fact, addressed this issue in a truly systematic and well-formulated ideological way include Dr. David Frawley (Sri Vedacharya Vamadeva Shastri), Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup and Dr. Koenraad Elst. I have also written about this topic very extensively, but have only begun releasing a limited number of my writings on this matter to the general public starting in early 2011, The Dharma Manifesto being the ideological dénouement of these writings. The following are a few thoughts on the current state of contemporary Dharma politics on the South Asian subcontinent, with an emphasis on the specific case of what is often termed “Hindu” Nationalism.
As we will see, the primary stumbling block that has relegated the greater Hindutva movement to near irrelevancy in the dual realms of both ideological development and engaged political action has been:
1) Its preponderance of reactionary thinking and action, rather than proactive cultivation of a more revolutionary outlook and practical strategy to both a.)gain political power and to b.) consequently govern the Indian nation-state along purely Dharmic principles.
2) The lack of the divinely-bestowed spiritual empowerment that is necessary for any self-described religious-based movement to secure meaningful success.
By the time the British and other European powers began the incremental process of colonial domination in India and the rest of South Asia in 1757, much of the Hindu community in north India specifically had already experienced hundreds of years of genocidal religious cleansing at the hands of the Mughals and other Islamic invaders before them. Without doubt, the establishment of European rule over India directly saved Hinduism (and, arguably, much of Vedic spiritual culture that served as the ancient basis of the later phenomenon of “Hinduism”) from inexorable extinction at the hands of Islam. If the British had not assumed the administration of India when they did, Hinduism would most likely not exist today, and all of present day India would be an Islamic state. All followers of Dharma must be eternally grateful to the British for this inadvertent rescue of the non-Islamic elements of Indian culture.
During the more liberal atmosphere of the British Raj period (1857-1947), history witnessed the beginning stages of a budding, if often very confused, and ultimately self-abnegating, Hindu renaissance with the emergence of such neo-Hindu movements as the Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission and Hindu Mahasabha, as well as such Hindu leaders as Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Bhaktivinode Thakura (1838-1914), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), Arumuga Navalar (1822-1879), Gedong Bagus Oka (1921-2002), Sister Nivedita (1867-1911), Annie Besant (1847-1933), and many others. As a result of the rediscovery of their Vedic heritage on the part of many 19th century and early 20th century Hindu intellectual leaders, a new sense of political activism in the name of a rediscovered “Hinduism” cautiously developed with the nascent political theories of such people as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) and Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889-1940).
The culmination of this new movement, which was decidedly devoted to a Hindu identity politics, has resulted in the overwhelmingly dominant role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (founded in 1925) and its greater Sangh Pariwar family of front organizations over the realm of Hindu politics in India for the last 85 years. The overtly political manifestation of the Sangh Pariwar movement was eventually manifest in the later Jana Sangh political party. The party operated under this name from 1951-1980. It was founded by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-1953), who was subsequently murdered by the Congress Party regime in 1953. Since 1980, the party has been known by the name Bharatiya Janata Party.
There has been a clear, multi-stage trajectory in which pro-Hindu political ideology and activism have progressed in the last 135 or so years. Before I discuss the nature of that trajectory in any significant depth, first I need to lay out the three general morphologies that most political formulations have historically taken. There are three general forms of political activity observable in the modern political realm: 1) Utopian, 2) Reactionary, 3) Revolutionary.
Utopian designates a primarily futuristic-oriented politics that tends to be very unrealistic and fantasy-fueled. In many cases utopian-based ideologies tend to be eschatologically-driven and millennial in outlook, with the never-achieved (or achievable) promise of a perfect paradise on earth that can only be delivered by the particular political movement making the given promise. Such disastrously failed movements as Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Anarchism and the political Left in general are Utopian in nature.
Reactionary, on the contrary, is primarily past-oriented and looks toward a “better, more ordered time”, that is historically usually no more than several generations previous to the present era, as the archetypal hallmark and model for present-day cultural renewal. As Nicolás Gómez Dávila explains the mindset of the reactionary: “The reactionary is, nevertheless, the fool who takes up the vanity of condemning history and the immorality of resigning himself to it.” American reactionaries, for example, tend to see the 1950s as the apex of American civilization. As is clear from the term itself, reactionaries are capable only of reacting to assaults on tradition that they detect around them, and are usually incapable of proffering pro-active and positive ideas for how to foundationally transform society for the better in the face of modernity’s degenerate encroachment upon traditional values and culture. Reactionaries are especially known for timidity, intellectual incuriosity, lack of vision, as well as narrow parochialism and immaturely expressed xenophobia. Republicans, Tories, and the conservative Right in general fall under this general heading. Utopian and Reactionary represent the two furthest opposing extremes of the political spectrum.
Revolutionary, on the other hand, describes a political stance that is proactive and constructive in nature, rather than merely utopian or reactionary. Rather than supporting either unrealistic utopian goals, or merely reacting in an ineffectively knee-jerk fashion to the incessant attacks of its opponents, the revolutionary perspective proffers positive systemic change designed to transform the basic characteristics of a presently-given social reality in a wholly original and fundamental way. Revolutionaries seek to alter society, not merely peripherally and incrementally, but foundationally and swiftly.
In the very specifically Hindu/Vedic context, the revolutionary perspective looks at the ancient past (and not merely two or three generations back, but millennia back) as the source from which to derive eternal principles that are designed to be used in the present day to create a radically better future. The Dharmic revolutionary subscribes to an archeofuturism, to use Guillaume Faye’s instructive terminology. Rather than merely dreaming about an unobtainable future based upon blind faith and wishful thinking, or conversely, merely reacting in a frustrated manner to the negative occurrences happening around them, revolutionaries seek systemic (and not merely cosmetic) change in the here and now.
The term “Revolutionary” tends to carry with it the stereotyped, and wholly inaccurate, notion of political violence, which is not at all the technical denotation of this word in political science terminology. Rather, by “Revolutionary” is meant a concept, ideology or movement whose aim is to affect fundamental systemic changes (i.e., a change of the prevailing system itself), rather than merely cosmetic or surface change alone (i.e., minutial changes and readjustments within the confines of the system). With this proper understanding of the terminology, the term “Revolutionary” does not in any way denote violence.
In brief, a Revolutionary movement must have the following features:
A) It is predicated upon a grand, but rationally achievable, vision.
B) It is led by a professional vanguard of elite leaders dedicated to achieving the vision, (b.i) who are capable of intellectually formulating that vision into ideological form, (b.ii) who know how to organize the masses in both the largest and most effective ways necessary to achieve the vision, and (b.iii) who themselves wholly personify the vision of the movement in their own personal character and lifestyle; i.e., the leader is the movement.
C) It has a clearly and systematically formulated ideology that encompasses the totality of political concern, including a comprehensive and defensible internal ideological structure, the minutia of economics, a philosophy of governance, social relations, geopolitical formulations, etc.
D) It has the ability to both formulate constructive alliances with like-motivated movements/organizations, and has a keen understanding of all aspects of the opposing forces.
E) Most importantly of all: a revolutionary has the resolute will to win.
As we look at the last 135 or so years of modern Hinduism, we see that Hindu forms of political expression have progressed roughly and sequentially, though certainly with significant overlaps, through the above three stages of Utopian, Reactionary, and Revolutionary.
“We Are One” – Utopian Stage (1875-1925)
Beginning in the Colonial era, and continuing down to today, such historical trends as the 19th century neo-Hindu movements and Radical Universalism, as well as such historic figures as Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi, and many of the earlier gurus who came to the West, clearly represented an early Utopian stage of Hindu political expression. The concerns of such Hindu Utopians included such unrealistic liberal Western notions as radical egalitarianism, universalism, evolutionary and historico-progressive world-views, temporal-centrism, and such emotionally-driven eschatological visions as the future establishment of a pan-ecumenical world political order – what today would be more accurately termed the New World Order. Such intellectually puerile sentiments, however, did not (and could not) lead to the type of strong Vedic restoration movement necessary to revive Dharma globally.
Such a Vedic restoration is necessarily radically traditionalist in nature, and is thoroughly opposed to all the key corrosive elements that have rendered modernity non-viable. The German intellectual Edgar Julius Jung (1894-1934) presciently describes a similar vision of such a restoration in the following way.
“Restoration of all those elementary laws and values without which man loses his ties with nature and God and without which he is incapable of building up a true order. In the place of equality there will be inherent standards, in the place of social consciousness a just integration into the hierarchical society, in the place of mechanical election an organic elite, in the place of bureaucratic leveling the inner responsibility of genuine self-government, in the place of mass prosperity the rights of a proud people.”
For Sanatana Dharma to both survive and thrive in the coming decades and centuries, a thorough Vedic Restoration along the lines of Jung’s words above must be brought about – a reaffirmation of Sanatana Dharma’s most ancient and orthodox cultural and spiritual expression in direct contradistinction to the values of both Western materialist modernity and shortsighted Indian nationalism (i.e., “Hindu” Nationalism).
Most of the formulators and present-day thinkers of the “Hindu Nationalist” movement represent, to one degree or another, a rather sharp historical and conceptual disconnect from the traditional Sanatana Dharma that had been taught by the Vedic Acharyas and that had been practiced by the common Hindu people for thousands of years. After 1000 years of genocidal battering on the part of Islamic invaders, modern Hinduism was definitely not at the height of its intellectual, cultural, spiritual and political/military glory by the time the British arrived on the scene. By the time the British had saved Vedic culture from extinction, a radically traditional Sanatana Dharma, in its unapologetic, pristine, and consciously Vedic-centric form, needed desperately to be reconstructed by her intellectuals and spiritual leaders. Unfortunately, a serious process of tradition-oriented reconstruction was not seriously attempted at that time.
Instead of seeing the dire problems with Hinduism that were present by the 18th and 19th centuries as something that needed to be addressed and cured from within the confines of Sanatana Dharma, the neo-Hindus instead turned to external, non-Vedic, sources for their guiding inspiration. As a result, rather than attempting a true reconstruction of authentic Sanatana Dharma, which would have made Sanatana Dharma strong and pure once again, they instead attempted an unnecessary “reform” of Sanatana Dharma along the lines of Christian norms and ideals.
Thus we saw the Christian-inspired, neo-Hindu obsessions with eliminating “caste”, eliminating sati, eliminating murti worship, Christian style monotheism, “social reform” at the expense of intellectual/spiritual development, Hegelian historicism, and Radical Universalism. Attendant upon these superfluous “reforms”, we now witness the sad legacy of a Hindu world confused about what it believes, about what even constitutes a “Hindu”, about its future, as well as Hindu children who are not interested in Hinduism, and a Hindu community of almost one billion people many of whom suffer from inferiority complexes and the psychological scars of a people disconnected from their true spiritual heritage. What Sanatana Dharma really needed was never “reform” along these neo-Hindu lines, but rather a positive tradition-based reconstruction of its eternal ideals. “Hinduism” needed to re-embrace its true essence as Sanatana Dharma – the Eternal Natural Way.
What Sanatana Dharma needed – and still needs! – were two interdependent developments.
A) A reclamation of Vedic-based, traditional Sanatana Dharma, with a highly orthodox, Vedic-centric understanding of the unitive and integral Vedic culture that had sustained Sanatana Dharma for 5000 years. It needed a purely Vedic understanding of pramana (valid means of knowledge and derivation of authority), of the nature of Dharma (in the strictest of philosophical senses, not just the popular sense), of what constitutes Vaidika (Vedic) vs. Avaidika (non-Vedic), etc.
B) Once the pure Tradition of Sanatana Dharma was reconstructed, the next organic development needed to be a strictly Vedic-based strategy for both juxtaposing, but also actively interfacing, traditional Sanatana Dharma with the modern world.
The latter project of fostering dialogue between Sanatana Dharma and modernity needed to be done, not by falsely denying the differences between the two (as almost all of the 19th century proto-Hindutva figures attempted via Radical Universalism), but in the same manner that every other ancient culture had met the challenge of modernity: recognition of most modern religions/ideologies as purva-pakshas – opposing ideological constructs; friendly and open debate with these purva-pakshas; unapologetic assurance in the exceptional status of Sanatana Dharma, and a concomitant refusal to concede to the forced imposition of an inferior status.
Unfortunately, because the unneeded distraction of “Hindu reform” became the more easily accomplished dominant paradigm of the hour, to this very day the real project of Vedic reconstruction outlined above has barely gotten off the ground. It is now time to begin the process.
Many of the “Hindu reformers” were well-motivated and sincere persons who truly felt that they were acting in the interests of Sanatana Dharma. Many of Ramakrishna’s words are very inspiring and wise. Swami Vivekananda was a truly courageous and talented leader who the Hindu people can and should take immense pride in. More, many of these personalities did accomplish some good in providing at least some modicum of a vehicle for interfacing Sanatana Dharma and modernity, however self-destructive this particular vehicle has ending up being in the long-run. In formulating a Christian-inspired paradigm for Vedic survival with only short-term successes in mind, however, they did not have the long-term implications of their syncretism in mind.
“We Are Different” – Reactionary Stage (1925-1945)
Beginning roughly in the Interwar period (the 1920s and 1930s), we then see the formulation of a strictly Reactionary form of Hindu politics with the emergence of Savarkar, Savitri Devi (the European Pagan writer Maximiani Portas, 1905-1982), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, etc. The uniformed paramilitary formations, martial aesthetic, stress on character development, egalitarian ethos combined with a rigid hierarchical structure, and much of the generic patriotic rhetoric of the RSS was directly appropriated from the newly immerging, parallel nationalist movements that were sweeping the European continent during the 1920s.
Unlike their much more successful European counterparts, however, this new reactionary Hindu movement had very few innovative ideas, did not know how to successfully engage in politics either electorally (not till the 1980s at the earliest) or in terms of mass mobilization (other than borrowing heavily from the paramilitary structure earlier developed by their much more successful counterparts in the various nationalist organizations of contemporary Europe), were wholly disconnected from the traditionalist and orthodox Vedic understanding and practice of the Yoga tradition, had no clear understanding of Dharmic political theory, and most importantly, did not know how to construct an elite political vanguard capable of leading the people by their own spiritual example.
The RSS and Sangh Pariwar defined itself, both historically and to this very day, exclusively in negative juxtaposition to what they were not: they were not Muslims; they were not Christians; they were not Marxists; thus, if only by necessary default, they were “Hindus”. However, to this very day, the RSS has found itself incapable of defining in positive identitarian terms what it actually means to be a Hindu in the spiritual sense of this term. Savarkar’s blind imitation of then-fashionable European racialist theory in the formulation of his interpretation of “Hindutva”, or “Hinduness”, as designating a specifically racial group was doomed to failure from the outset. For Savarkar and all those who followed in his footsteps, being Hindu meant being Indian; being Indian meant being Hindu. Thus, Hinduism for the Hindu Nationalists was merely another term for the Indian race! Being a politician, and not a Vedic philosopher, Savarkar did not understand that Sanatana Dharma does not equate to the Indian race. Sanatana Dharma is a world-view and spiritual tradition. It is the sacred heritage, not merely of those people who happen to possess an Indian passport, but of the entirety of the Indo-European peoples.
To this day, rather than facilitating the radical, systemic change necessary to bring about a new Dharma civilization (which is clearly not at all the aim of these Hindutva movements, and never has been), the Reactionary tendency in pro-Hindu politics has shown itself to be an un-visionary, anti-intellectual, philosophically impotent and currently irrelevant political force. It finds itself dedicated more to a rather light version of Indian Nationalist conservatism than Vedic nation building.
The deepest extent of their political program essentially consists of a return to an era more within the comfort zone of the octogenarian men who lead this reactionary movement – possibly a return to India circa 1855 for Savarkar and Hedgewar, or an India circa 1955 for an Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani. A Dharma Nation will never be achieved by the feckless Reactionaries, if only because such a goal is not even within the scope of their actual aims or intellectual understanding.
Sadly, the vast bulk of so-called “Hindu activism” that takes place today still falls under the category of Reactionary, and is more a reflection of amorphous Indian Nationalism, and general pride of place and ethnicity than any serious attempt to reorder society (either Indian, American, or global) in such a manner as to reflect Dharmic principles instantiated in concrete political form.
Many of the attempts at polemical and ideological writing that we have seen arising from “Hindu Nationalists” make it all too apparent that they are not yet politically mature enough to either vie for power or to govern a working nation-state. When, and only when, it comes to the point that self-described “Hindu Nationalists” develop the philosophical maturity to engage in the nuanced ideological struggle necessary to win power, and only when they learn how to develop temporary and practical alliances with others while also keeping the greater goal of political power in mind, will they be ready to govern the current nation-state of India. Only then will “India” become Vedic Bharat once again! Contemporary “Hindu Nationalism” needs to move away from the fantasy-rhetoric level that they have wallowed in for so many decades, and begin the hard work of engaging in real politics in the real world.
“We are Vedic!” – Transforming the RSS into a Revolutionary Movement
Without doubt, the current attempt at Vedic restoration is seen as almost being synonymous with the vision, leadership, organizational structures and ideological pronouncements of the RSS movement. With approximately six million dedicated activists, the RSS is officially the largest volunteer organization on the Earth today. Unfortunately, the RSS has served as a sadly flawed and ideologically challenged vehicle for Vedic restoration. The RSS will need to address the following problems if it is going to transform itself from a Reactionary movement to a Revolutionary one:
A) Distinguishing between Indian Nationalism versus Vedic Restorationism. Many difficulties arise when these two separate concerns become indistinguishable, as they very clearly have in the minds of almost all “Hindu Nationalists”. Indian Nationalism is an ethnicity/national/racial movement. Vedic Restoration, on the other hand, is a religious/cultural/philosophical one. The RSS has, in my opinion, been more of an Indian Nationalist movement than a Vedic Restorationist movement. More, this is the primary reason why the BJP so badly lost the Indian national election of 2004 – because they tried to appeal to Muslims, Christians, pseudo-secularists, and other non-Hindu Indians merely as patriotic Indians, rather than appealing exclusively to the majority community as follower of Sanatana Dharma. The RSS’s main concern has become Indian Nationalism rather than Sanatana Dharma…and this has only set the movement back.
B) Within the current day Vedic Restorationist movement, we must clarify the difference between Hindu Revival (a political/social/cultural phenomenon), which the RSS is predominantly engaged in, versus Vedic Reconstruction, (an intellectual/academic/philosophical/spiritual matrix of projects), which is precisely what such individuals as David Frawley, Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, Shrikant Talageri, Subhash Kak and myself, as well as other, more traditionalist, Vedic thinkers are engaged in. Both are projects of seemingly rival significance, and the different natures, goals and methods of these two separate projects need to be understood.
C) Within the parallel projects of Hindu Revival and Vedic Reconstruction, we need to distinguish between a Neo-Hindu versus a Traditionalist world-view, which has been addressed to a much greater extent in the book Radical Universalism: Are All Religions the Same?, by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.
The RSS is currently a neo-Hindu, revivalist, Indian Nationalist movement. What it needs to become is a Traditionalist Vedic Reconstructionist movement. Like some of the 19th century neo-Hindus of the past, the RSS has done much good for the Indian nation-state historically. The RSS has been on the front-lines of defending Hindu India from foreign aggression, both military and missionary. The sacrifices of countless individual RSS members are too numerous to mention. Today, however, both India and Sanatana Dharma need radically more. The RSS needs to change quite radically if it is going to maintain itself as an effective organization in the future.
The following is a ten point program that Hindu Nationalists should implement if they truly wish to transform their nation of India for the better.
1) Annihilate the immediate existential threat from the Communist terrorists, Islamic Jihadists and Christian missionaries who have enslaved your country.
2) Stop graduating countless engineers, “IT professionals” and medical personnel, and instead begin to once again encourage your children to become philosophers, sadhus (sages), artists, thinkers, warriors and leaders.
3) Revive the Kshatriya warrior spirit of your ancestors and no longer revel in weakness in the name of ahimsa.
4) Re-Aryanize, re-Vedicize and re-spiritualize the entirety of your present-day culture.
5) Eliminate the Dalit problem once and for all by allowing those many individuals who are eligible among this community to enter the varna system in accordance with their inherent individual psycho-physical nature. If a Dalit behaves like a brahmana, then he is a brahmana. Period!
6) Learn to interact with modernity in a successful manner. That means, without excuses, rededicating yourselves to excellence and perfection in everything you do and communicate.
7) Build your own economy instead of depending upon the West for economic success via immigration and outsourcing of jobs. To do this, you will need to completely exorcise your economy of even the slightest taint of socialism and collectivism. Once and for all – Socialism simply does not work!
8) Start to carry yourselves with courage and pride in your Vedic heritage, rather than viewing this heritage as an embarrassing burden from the past. If you do not reclaim your immense Vedic heritage, someone else will reclaim it from you.
9) Make spoken Sanskrit the sole recognized language of your nation.
10) To successfully achieve all of the above, stop reaching for any and all excuses for why you have not yet been able to achieve these goals. Victory belongs only to those who reject excuses. Then, and only then, will Bharat regain the respect of the world.
Dharma Nationalism: A New Revolutionary Approach
The new stage that Hindu activism needs to take is undoubtedly the Revolutionary approach. It is clear that Indian Hindus now need to enter the Post-RSS phase of Hindu activism. As a starting point, 21st century Hindu activism needs to make a sharp break from its more paranoid and pessimistic past, and begin to start thinking in much more realistic, concrete, strategic and winning terms.
The enemies of Dharma have had the gift of being able to think and strategize on a long-term basis. Their end goal has always been the end of Dharmic civilization and the creation of their own dystopic vision of reality ranging centuries into the future! Contemporary Hindu activism, on the other hand, has only seemed able to operate reactively, only thinking about some immediate injustices that have just occurred in the news today – and even then only rarely reacting effectively, if at all. The contemporary Indian Hindu activist movement needs to stop looking for excuses, and beat the enemy at their own game.
A truly Revolutionary Dharma activist movement has not existed on the world scene until 2012. The seeds of its birth have now come to fruition in the form of the Dharma Nationalist movement.
Indeed, the Indian nationalist fueled “Hindu” activism of the past will now quickly take a back seat to the spiritually fueled Dharma Nationalist activism of the future. Unlike parochial “Hindu Nationalism”, Dharma Nationalist activism is, indeed, comprehensively total in its application. It is based primarily upon spiritual/philosophical concern, and only secondarily on ethnic/national concern. It is motivated by the spiritual insight and compassion gifted to us by the eternal Truth of Sanatana Dharma, and not merely on an empty pride residing in the relative and temporal, ever-changing geographical boundaries of the nation-state of India. It fosters a true selfless action akin with that of the rishis, and not merely a series of political calculations based upon the personal need for power and aggrandizement.
More crucial than any other juxtaposing comparison to the failed Hindu activist endeavors of the past: Dharma Nationalism presents a clear, realistic, and achievable strategic diagram revealing exactly how society should be best structured in order to ensure the maximal amount of happiness and prosperity, to the fullest degree of qualitative and spiritual depth, for the greatest number of living beings. This fact will be abundantly evident upon an attentive reading of The Dharma Manifesto.
 Tentatively translated as “Hinduness”.
 Born as Margaret Elizabeth Noble, an Irish social worker who abandoned Christianity and became a follower of Sanatana Dharma.
 The second leader of the Theosophical Society after Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891).
 “Indian People’s Party”.
 Reactionaries do not look to ancient or Classical antecedents for guidance for the present, but tend to only look back a few generations at most.
 See Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age for more on this innovative concept.
 My term for the deceivingly comforting psychological phenomenon exhibited by any given generation that convinces them that the particular era in which they find themselves represents the most important and advanced era in history. A much more healthy approach in reconciling one’s subjective perception with the particular times in which one finds oneself was nicely stated by the German philosopher Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) in the following manner: “Live with your century, but do not be its creature.” (On the Aesthetic Education of Man)
 Edgar J. Jung, Deutsche uber Deutschland (Munich, 1932), p. 380.
 Savitri Devi and Savarkar were in agreement on several basic issues of Hindu Nationalism. Babarao G.D. Savarkar, brother of V.D. Savarkar, even wrote the Forward to Savitri Devi’s book “A Warning to the Hindus“.
 “India is dear to us because it has been and is the home of our Hindu Race, the land which has been the cradle of our prophets, and heroes and Gods and godmen …. The real meaning of Swarajya then, is not merely the geographical independence of the bit of earth called India. To the Hindus independence of Hindusthan can only be worth having if that ensures their Hindutva – their religious, racial and cultural identity.” (Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 4, pp. 218-9)
 Approximately 83% of the Indian population are followers of Sanatana Dharma – a clear majority.
 Balraj Madhok, the president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh party in the late 1960s, is a living example of the patriotic fervour of Hindu Nationalism. He wrote the following in 1970: “Western countries also have been exerting to exploit India’s illiteracy and poverty by using their economic aid measures, their cheap and provocative literature, and, above all, their missionaries as instruments for a campaign of mass conversion. We want to warn these foreign powers not to indulge in activities that violate India’s sovereignty and independence and demand that the Government of India take stern measures to curb them.” (Indianisation? What, Why and How. New Delhi: S. Chand, 1970, p. 103)
This article is from chapter 2 of the groundbreaking new political work “The Dharma Manifesto”, by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.
The Dharma Manifesto serves as the first ever systematic revolutionary blueprint for the nascent global Vedic movement that will, in the very near future, arise to change the course of world history for the betterment of all living beings. The Dharma Manifesto signals the beginning of a wholly new era in humanity’s eternal yearning for meaningful freedom and happiness.
About the Author
Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya has been acknowledged by many Hindu leaders throughout the world to be one of the most revolutionary and visionary Vedic spiritual masters on the Earth today.
With a forty year history of intensely practicing the spiritual disciplines of Yoga, and with a Ph.D. in Religious Studies, Sri Acharyaji is one of the most eminently qualified authorities on Vedic philosophy, culture and spirituality. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of Dharma and Civilization.
His most historically groundbreaking politico-philosophical work, “The Dharma Manifesto”, is now offered to the world at a time when its people are most desperately crying out for fundamental change.