Sita Ram Goel asserts that Hindu nationalism is an ancient and enduring force in Indian history. The emergence of Shivaji in the 17th century marked the beginning of a triumphant Hindu resurgence: his capture of Torna fort initiated a victorious campaign, supported by Marathas, Rajputs, Bundelas, and Sikhs, which within a century reduced Muslim rule to hollow impotence.
AS SOON AS the first quarter of the seventeenth century ended, there appeared in Maharashtra that great man who, with unprecedented valour, turned the Hindu nation —afflicted by the torment of defeat — once again towards victory.
Shivaji’s capture of the fort named Torna was the first proclamation of that victorious campaign.
Thirty-two years after that auspicious date, on the day when Shivaji’s grand procession passed through the markets of Bijapur, the victorious march of the Hindu nation had advanced very far indeed. That victorious march was never again halted by the Muslims.
The Marathas received the support of the Rajputs of Rajasthan; the Bundelas of the Vindhya region gave their support, and the Sikhs of Punjab gave their support as well.
Within a hundred years of Shivaji’s appearance, the oppressive Muslim rule had become completely hollow from within and was left gasping for its last breaths.
Thirdly, this conclusion is also entirely baseless that before the modern era, there was no stream of Hindu nationalism in this country.
Why has the name of Prime Minister Kautilya and Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, who expelled the remnant army of the Yavanas from this country, been a subject of reverence for Hindus alone?
Why is Pushyamitra Shunga, who defeated the second campaign of the Yavanas, famous in Indian history?
Why is every child of the Hindu nation familiar with the name of Shashanka Vikramaditya?
Were not Emperor Skandagupta, who expelled the Huns from this country, symbols of Hindu nationalism?
Were the Maukhari, Pushyabhuti, and Pala dynasty kings, who united under the leadership of King Yashodharman of Dashapura to obstruct the second campaign of the Huns, not inspired by any kind of national sentiment?
Were the Chalukyas, Pratiharas, and Kakatkas who united against the Arabs devoid of the notions of homeland and own religion?
The armies that came from all over North India to Punjab to fight the Yamini Sultans of Ghazni under the leadership of the Shahis — were they not bearing any national sentiment? The Kshatriya clans from province to province who united and fought for the protection of Somnath — did they merely succumb to momentary emotional impulse?
Why did the Kshatriyas of Gujarat, Malwa, Rajasthan, and Bundelkhand gather under the flag of Prithviraj Chauhan? And why is the name of Jayachandra, who did not support the Chauhan king, condemnable for all Hindus?
For the establishment of the Vijayanagara state, Madhava Vidyaranya and Vedacharya Sayana gave Harihara and Bukka the message of Hindutva. Before them, was there no national objective at all?
Why does every Hindu bow his head as soon as the name of Maharana Pratap is mentioned? And why does every Hindu wrinkle their nose and brow at the name of Raja Man Singh? Was the guru-disciple relationship between Samartha Ramdas and Shivaji only spiritual? Was the courageous message, “practice spirituality, but also kill for Dharma” expressing some personal enmity of theirs and not any love for the nation?
The most solid proof of the extremely long-lasting and intensely fervent national sentiment of the Hindu nation is this singular fact: despite enduring innumerable blows, the Hindu nation is still alive and thriving.
If there had been no national sentiment within the Hindu nation, it too — like ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Iran, and numerous other nations — would have kept coloring itself in the civilization, culture, and religion of each successive conqueror. It would not have stubbornly clung to its own tradition in this way, thereby not intensifying the calamities that came in evil times.
Today, in the whole world, the Hindu nation is the only nation that still stands firmly on the very same faith and tradition on which it stood in its primordial age. And that primordial age has no discernible beginning or end.
If even this immortal life-force does not present evidence of the intense national sentiment of the Hindu nation, then no such sentiment as national sentiment exists at all, and the word itself should be nothing more than a meaningless sound.
Based on all historical evidence, the only conclusion that emerges is that the so-called Muslim era history of India is in reality the unadulterated saga of the Hindu nation's own decline and rise, defeat and valor.
In times of decline and defeat, some elements of the Hindu nation, succumbing to greed, fear, or delusion, turned away from their Hindu tradition and abandoned their Hindu religion.
But for this very reason, did the history of contemporary India cease to be the history of the Hindu nation? For this very reason, did the land of India cease to be the motherland solely of the Hindu nation? Will the history of the unbroken and invincible valor of the Hindu nation not be considered as evidence in this context? And will the adoption of another religion by some misguided and helpless members of the Hindu family alone continue to be presented as evidence in this context?
Such a distorted interpretation of Indian history can only be made by those who are either completely foolish or deranged, or who wish to conceal the truth and propagate falsehood for the fulfillment of some other objective.
To be continued
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.