On Indian Secularism

In its (secularism's) name, politicians again adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minorities, it is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularism sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple... These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. If, however, the misuse of the term `secularism' continues... if every time there is an inter-community conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question, the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up... While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided. (From a letter he wrote to the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru)

On the Indian History taught in India

Generation after generation during their school or college career were told about the successive foreign invasions of the country, but little about how we resisted them and less about our victories. They were taught to decry the Hindu social system; but they were not told how this system came into existence as a synthesis of political, social, economic and cultural forces; how it developed in the people the tenacity to survive catastrophic changes for millennia; how it protected life and culture in times of difficulty by its conservative strength and in favourable times developed an elasticity which made ordered progress possible; and how its vitality enabled the national culture to adjust its central ideas to new conditions.

On Sanskrit Language 

Indian culture has an organic unity, and this has been largely brought out by language movements, shaped and molded by the Sanskrit language.

On Muslim Invasion of India

Between A.D. 999 and 1761, the Turk, Afghan and Mongol invaders uprooted Hindu Kingdoms in several parts of the country. During the course of their campaign they forcibly converted to Islam large masses of men and women; they and their followers also took to themselves Hindu women captured or kidnapped, as wives....

In the territories ruled over by Muslim chiefs, the convert enjoyed many of the privileges of the ruling class. The rulers were their co-religionists; every office carrying influence or high emoluments was theirs, so were all the good things of life". (Vide, Pilgrimage to Freedom by K.M. Munshi, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Pp. 62-64).

On India

India, (Aryavrata) is not a mere geographical expression, not a mere political entity.. India is the Motherland of those who see and follow Dharma (righteousness).

On Factors Found in Virile Nations

What are the forces which lead to the rise or fall of nations? How do nations rise and fall?.....What are the factors which go to make a virile nation? When do they run amok?....Three factors are invariably found in virile nations: common memory of achievements, will to unity and habitual urge to collective action. (From his book Warnings of History)

On Uniform Civil Code

A further argument has been advanced that the enactment of a Civil Code would be tyrannical to minorities. Is it tyrannical? Nowhere in advanced Muslim countries the personal law of each minority has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a Civil Code. Take for instance Turkey or Egypt. No minority in these countries is permitted to have such rights. But I go further. When the Shariat Act was passed or when certain laws were passed in the Central Legislature in the old regime, the Khojas and Cutchi Memons were highly dissatisfied.

They then followed certain Hindu customs; for generations since they became converts they had done so. They did not want to conform to the Shariat; and yet by a legislation of the Central Legislature certain Muslim members who felt that Shariat law should be enforced upon the whole community carried their point. The Khojas and Cutchi Memons most unwillingly had to submit to it. Where were the rights of minority then? When you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the benefit which may accrue to the whole community and not to the customs of a part of it. It is therefore not correct to say that such an act is tyranny of the majority. If you will look at the countries in Europe which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there from any part of the world and every minority, has to submit to the Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the minority. (Constitutional Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p.547)

The point, however, is that, whether we are going to consolidate and unify our personal law in such a way that the way of life of the whole country may in course of time be unified and secular. We want to divorce religion from personal law, from what may be called social relations or from the rights of parties as regards inheritance or succession. What have these things got to do with religion, I really fail to understand. Take for instance the Hindu Law Draft which is before the Legislative Assembly. If one looks at Manu and Yagnavalkya and all the rest of them, I think most of the provisions of the new Bill will run counter to their injunctions. But after all we are an advancing society. We are in a stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation by every means without interfering with religious practices. If however the religious practices in the past have been so construed as to cover the whole field of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. (Constitutional Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p.547)

There is one important consideration which we have to bear in mind - and I want my Muslim friends to realise this, that the sooner we forget this isolationist outlook on life, it will be better for the country. Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible, a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important problem is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity. But there are many factors - and important factors - which still offer serious dangers to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, 'Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation'. From that point of view alone, I submit, the opposition (to Uniform Civil Code) is not, if I may say so, very well advised. I hope our friends will not feel that this is an attempt to exercise tyranny over a minority; it is much more tyrannous to the majority. (Constitutional Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p.548)

On Nehru

Jawaharlal Nehru, a scion of an aristocratic family of Kashmir, which in the past was closely associated with the Muslim rulers, never could understand the problem. He was allergic to Hinduism. He attributed to chauvinism even a defensive action by the Hindus, and viewed the master-race complex of the Muslims with complacence if not indulgence....(Vide, Pilgrimage to Freedom by K.M. Munshi, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Pp. 62-64)