In
its 1971 Manifesto, the
Bhartiya Jana Sangh (BJS),
the predecessor of BJP
had declared: ‘Jana
Sangh fully subscribes
to the ancient ideal of
the non-communal state.
In India no one is discriminated
against on grounds of
his religion. The state
has always looked upon
all faiths as entitled
to equal freedom and protection.
Jana Sangh is resolved
to carry forward this
secular tradition. Jana
Sangh, however, rejects
the pseudo-secularism
that combines irreligion
with appeasement. We would
like followers of all
religions to accept the
Indian ideal of Sarvadharma-samabhava
and cherish a feeling
of not merely tolerance,
but equal respect for
other faiths’. 2
In
all its manifestoes, the
BJP has reiterated its
faith in secularism. The
BJP Constitution declares:
‘The party aims
at establishing a democratic
state which guarantees
to all citizens irrespective
of caste, creed or sex,
political, social and
economic justice, equality
of opportunity and liberty
of faith and expression.
The party shall bear true
faith and allegiance to
the Constitution of India
as by law established
and to the principles
of socialism, secularism
and democracy, and would
uphold the sovereignty,
unity and integrity of
India’.
3
During
1989-91 (when the Ayodhya
movement was its peak),
the BJP rhetoric was at
its most ‘communal’.
Yet, its manifesto for
the 1989 elections says:
‘The idea of a theocratic
state is an anathema to
the Indian mind and the
BJP believes that the
state in India has always
been a civil institution
which respects all religions
equally and makes no discrimination
between one citizen and
the other on the grounds
of language, gender, caste
or religion’. 4
In
fact BJP's pledge enjoins
upon its every member,
a concept of a secular
state and nation not based
on religion. BJP believes
in 'Integral Humanism'
as its basic philosophy,
which visualises a harmonious
relation between individuals,
individual and state,
state and world, individual
and humanity.
The
democratic bona fides
of the BJP is certified
by the French political
scientist Gerard Heuze.
‘Ou va Inde moderne’
(Whither Modern India)
is one of the best studies
of the Indian political
scene by any foreign scholar.
Though Heuze is ideologically
close to the Indian secularists,
he does not parrot their
slogans since he is objective.
According to him, ‘Gandhi's
murderer was a member
of the Hindu Mahasabha,
and not of the RSS as
is commonly alleged’.
5
Heuze
emphasises that ‘the
Hindu movement is much
larger than the BJP’.6
Heuze claims ‘The
BJP seeks to link up internationally
with the democratic, non-racist
right.’ 7
Quoting Heuze, Konaraad
Elst, a Belgium born Indologist,
points out that ‘internal
democracy has been effective
in the BJP, but has for
long been suspended in
Congress. He (Heuze) also
highlights the egalitarian
element in the Hindutva
action programme, including
its anti-casteism. As
a son of the motherland
of secularism, he (Heuze)
acknowledges that in central
points of the communalism
debate, the classical
agenda of secularism is
brandished not by the
secularist establishment
but by the Hindu movement,
starting with the Common
Civil Code demand’.
(The Saffron Swastika,
Voice of India, New Delhi).
The
RSS does talk in terms
of `Hindu Rashtra' (Hindu
nation and not Hindu state).
There is an ocean of difference
between a `Hindu state'
and a `Hindu nation'.
India under a `Hindu State'
will be `Hindu Pakistan',
a concept totally alien
to Indian ethos. `Hindu
Rasthra' means a nation
inspired by Hindutva philosophy
i.e. a pluralistic and
democratic state, in conformity
with the age-old tradition
of states ruled by Hindu
kings, which put `Panth
nirpeksh', `sect neutrality'
into practice. According
to Shri K. S. Sudarshan,
the RSS chief: ‘One
of the corner stones of
the cultural foundation
of the ancient mansion
of `Hindu Rashtra' is
`unity in diversity'…..
‘The Hindu system
of thought starts by accepting
the fact that every entity
has a distinct role to
play and a special contribution
to make in the evolution
of the universe’
8
To
quote Guru Golwalkar (the
second RSS chief who led
the organisation for over
three decades): ‘As
far as the national tradition
of this land is concerned,
it never considers that
with a change in the method
of worship, an individual
ceases to be the son of
the soil and should be
treated as an alien. Here,
in this land, there can
be no objection to God
being called by any name
whatever. Ingrained in
this soil is love and
respect for all faiths
and religious beliefs.
He cannot be a son of
this soil at all who is
intolerant of other faiths.’
(Bunch of Thoughts, Suruchi
Sahitya, 1980, pp.208).
He further says, ‘The
Hindu thought did not
stop at the negative aspect
of restraining one religion
from infringing upon another.
The wide and all-comprehensive
view of life ingrained
in the Hindu ruler made
him respect and even encourage
every single religious
thought, however few its
adherents, to grow according
to its own genius. The
King became the symbol
of support and protection
to all faiths and creeds
and never of negation
of religion. This is the
positive content of 'secularism'
if at all it can be called
so. Indeed, our concept
of 'state' has always
been 'secular' and emphasising
the secular nature of
the state by the adjective
'secular' is redundant
in our country.’
(ibid.
Pp 215 & 216).
However,
detractors of BJP/RSS
have of late been citing
a 77-page pamphlet called
‘We’ or Our
Nationhood Defined’
purported to have been
written in 1939 by Golwalkar
and selectively quoting
a paragraph- ‘The
non-Hindu people in Hindustan,
must cease to be foreigners,
wholly subordinated to
the Hindu nation, claiming
nothing, deserving privileges,
far less any preferential
treatment not even Citizen's
rights.’ Since Guru
Golwalkar had headed RSS
and expanded the organisation
in a major way, this statement
has been sought to be
branded as RSS’
official view and is used
to nail the organisation
as ‘undemocratic’
and ‘fascist’.
But
such intellectuals conveniently
gloss over the fact that
it was not Golwalkar's
original work but free
English rendering by him
in his formative years
in RSS of a Marathi book,
'Rashtra Meemansa' by
G.D. Savarkar. Golwalkar
had subsequently distanced
himself from the book
and the book has been
out of print since 1947.
The Marxists dug 'We'
out of some dusty archive
in 1992 and projected
it as the most authentic
piece on RSS ideology.
The RSS has repeatedly
explained its stand on
this book. The whole story
behind this book was written
by Devendra Swaroop, a
senior RSS man, in RSS-
Hindi organ Panchajanya
of February 17, 1980,
much before CPI (M) had
discovered ‘We’
. I have also repeated
this fact, but '’secularists’
continue to tag ‘We’
to the RSS with a purpose.
Apart
from the allegation of
‘theocratic’
designs leveled against
the BJP / RSS, another
charge is that they have
‘fascist’
inspiration. Fascism is
a secular-nationalist
ideology. Theocracy is
in principle contrary
to people's sovereignty,
i.e. democracy. Thus,
in a theocratic Pakistan,
the Shariat Court can
throw out any democratically
enacted law which it deems
contrary to Islamic tenets.
On the other hand, pluralism
is central to Hindu tradition.
The
‘leader principle’
is central to ‘fascism’
which was quite popular
in the 1920s and 30s with
Italy as the trendsetter.
In the 1920s, there was
a widespread feeling in
Europe that democracy
had failed, since it bred
cultural and economic
decay and general mediocrity.
This is in contrast to
the contemporary mood
in Europe. There is not
even one party of substance
that pleads for dictatorship.
In India too, few people
today would dare plead
for the abolition of democracy.
Even communists are forced
to present their anti-democratic
programme as ‘democratic’.
But interestingly even
those claiming to be fighting
against fascists have
used the 'leadership principle'
without calling it by
its name. Stalin, Mao
Zedong, Albania's Enver
Hoxha, North Korea's Kim
II-Sung and Nicolai Ceaucescu
enjoyed absolute power
following the principle
of the ‘dictatorship
of the proletariat through
its vanguard party’.
Communism and fascism
are today just two sides
of the same coin. The
leadership principle is
central to fascism and
communism practices it
without saying so.
Now
let us look at RSS. The
official guru of the RSS
is the saffron flag (Bhagwa
Dhwj): ‘Soon after
founding the RSS, Hedgewar
cautioned the first recruits
that no man, including
himself, should be honoured
as the embodiment of the
RSS. He decided that the
flag (the bhagva dhwaj)
should be recognised as
its 'living' guru.’
9
This
point is frequently reiterated
in Hindutva literature,
e.g. in its editorial
on the occasion of Guru
Purnima 1999, the VHP,
related periodical Shree
Vishwa Niketan writes:
‘In Sangh, we do
not believe in hero-worship,
and declaring Bhagwa Dhwaja
as Guru has been a master
stroke from Sangh founder
P.P. Dr. Hedgewar.(…)
The visionary in him wanted
Sangh to be free from
someone's hegemony and
hunger for power. Bhagwa
Dhwaj represents the tradition
and history of Hindus,
the saints and sages from
Vedic times and all heroes
of Hindu history. It is
the undisputable Guru
of all those who call
themselves Hindus.10
The
RSS political philosophy
and strategy and working
style are not focused
on state power. Contrary
to communist and authoritarian
state-centred ideologies,
the Hindutva movement
accepts the ‘primacy
of nation/society over
state power’.11
Andersen and Damle point
out that ‘European
fascism, like other Western
forms of totalitarianism,
sought to destroy or to
seize control of all existing
centers of sociopolitical
and economic power. The
RSS has not abandoned
the Hindu bias towards
semi-autonomous social
units within which a group
discovers its own ethos
(…) While fascist
doctrine traces all power
to the political leader,
the belief system of the
RSS displays a marked
distrust of political
leadership’.
12
The
RSS attaches less importance
to the state and to politics
than Marxists of classical
nationalist movements
do: ‘The RSS does
not make total claims
on society. The members
are not encouraged to
overthrow or replace the
government. Their claims
are partial, and they
demand primacy only in
the character-building
area. It has infrequently
challenged government
authority. When it did
so, the actions were limited,
and lasted only until
the specific grievances
were resolved. These examples
were acts of civil disobedience,
not revolution.’13
The
RSS and the organisations
inspired by its philosophy
(popularly called Sangh
Parivar) have always stood
by democracy. During the
Emergency, declared by
Prime Minister Indra Gandhi,
it was they who suffered
Indira Gandhi's repression
the most while the communists
had happily collaborated
with the draconian regime.
The Communists have contempt
for ‘bourgeois democracy’,
and they suffer it only
as a matter of strategy.
Thus,
it is not difficult to
see why communists and
the BJP appear to be two
extreme poles of Indian
political spectrum. For
the BJP to be a democratic
party, it should be hostile
to anti-democratic ideologies.
It should therefore be
anti-communist. No wonder
the Indian communist parties
have been the most strident
and vocal opponents of
the BJP and the RSS and
used their global expertise
of mixing half-truths
with total lies to tar
their image and attach
labels such as ‘communal,
undemocratic, secret and
fascist’.
Who
is a Communalist?
For an objective understanding
of the democratic credentials
of India's communalists
and secularists, it should
be noted that the amendment
to the Constitution which
declared India a ‘secular,
socialist’ republic
was rammed through without
proper parliamentary debate
in 1976 during the dark
era of Emergency, when
the opposition was locked
in jails. The opponents
of BJP/RSS, particularly
Marxists, have partly
succeeded through their
vile ways to establish
the two organisations
as the fountain head of
all communalism in India,
though these very organisations
have been fighting a relentless
battle to usher in genuine
secularism. Their stance
on all what are termed
as ‘contentious
issues’ such as
abolition of Article 370
or a Uniform Civil Code
are directed towards the
establishment of a legitimate
'secularism' where citizens
are not discriminated
for or against on the
basis of religion.
In
India, there are separate
personal laws for each
of the communities: Parsi,
Christian, Muslim and
Hindu (which for this
purpose includes Buddhist
and Sikh) contrary to
any such practice in any
other secular country.
A Muslim, for example,
can have four wives at
a time, while the others
cannot. The secularists
make much of the fact
that while a small number
of Muslims go for polygamy,
many non-Muslims do have
mistresses. Is it not
inequality before law?
Muslims can practise polygamy
legally and non-Muslims
can do so by breaking
the law. Moreover Common
Civil Code is not an issue
between Hindus and Muslims.
It is a gender issue-a
fight for equal rights
for Muslim women vis-à-vis
Muslim men. Who are communalists;
the ones who back Muslim
women in their fight for
equal rights or those
who support Muslim men
to retain their privilege
to have four wives and
divorce them at will by
saying 'Talaq' (divorce)
three times?
Further,
there are inequalities,
which show bias of the
system against Hindus.
For example, Article 370
gives a special status
to Jammu & Kashmir,
which has its own separate
Constitution, and non-Kashmiris
cannot own property in
the state which had merged
into the Indian Union
like hundreds of other
princely states following
the departure of British
in 1947. The intention
is to ensure the existing
Muslim majority there,
surely an unsecular concern.
It also establishes an
inequality between Muslims
and other minorities.
The Christian-dominated
north-eastern states and
Sikh-majority in the Punjab
do not enjoy any such
privileges.
The
management of most of
the rich Hindu temples
is almost entirely controlled
by the State Governments
(implying: their funds
directed to non-Hindu
projects), while churches
and mosques are entirely
run by the respective
religious communities.
Article 30 of the Indian
Constitution gives minorities
the right to establish
and run their own government-aided
educational institutions,
whereas Hindus are denied
this privilege.
There
is not one country (secular
or non-secular) where
the majority community
is discriminated against
in this manner. India
cannot be secular in real
terms with these contradictions
remaining intact. Those
who seek to remove these
infirmities wish to turn
India not into a theocratic
but into a genuine secular
state. The BJP is right
when it calls itself ‘fully
committed to secularism’
and terms the other parties
as ‘pseudo-secularists’.
What
is Hinduism?
The RSS views about Hinduism
are widely shared, even
by those who are outside
the fold of Hinduism.
The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica says, ‘In
principle, Hinduism incorporates
all forms of belief and
worship without necessitating
the selection or elimination
of any. It is axiomatic
that no religious idea
in India ever dies or
is superseded; it is merely
combined with the new
ideas that arise in response
to it. Hindus are inclined
to revere the divine in
every manifestation, whatever
it may be, and are doctrinally
tolerant, allowing others
to follow their beliefs,
including Hindus and non-Hindus.
A Hindu may embrace a
non-Hindu religion without
ceasing to be a Hindu,
and because Hindus are
disposed to think synthetically
and to regard other forms
of worship, strange gods,
and divergent doctrines
as inadequate rather than
wrong or objectionable.
They tend to believe that
the highest divine powers
complement one another.
Few religious ideas are
considered to be irreconcilable.
The core or religion does
not depend on the existence
or nonexistence of God
or on whether there is
one god or many. Because
religious truth is said
to transcend all verbal
definition; it is not
conceived in dogmatic
terms. Moreover, the tendency
of Hindus to distinguish
themselves from others
on the basis of practice
(orthopraxy) rather than
doctrine (orthodoxy) further
de-emphasises doctrinal
differences. Hinduism
is both a civilisation
and a congregation of
religions; it has neither
a beginning or founder,
nor a central authority,
hierarchy, or organisation.
Every attempt at a specific
definition of Hinduism
has proved unsatisfactory
in one way or another,
the more so because the
finest scholars of Hinduism,
including Hindus themselves,
have emphasised different
aspects of the whole’.
(15th edition vol. 20,
pg 519).
Cultural
Nationalism:
After Pakistan broke away
as an Islamic nation,
India would have been
justified to proclaim
itself as a Hindu state.
But India chose to give
itself a 'secular' constitution.
Today India is a secular
state not because it has
a secular constitution.
Instead, the Constitution
is secular and democratic
because the constituent
assembly was Hindu dominated.
Imagine a situation if
the constituent assembly
was overwhelmingly Muslim.
Would not India have also
ended as a bigger clone
of Pakistan? Bangladesh,
which broke away from
Pakistan in 1971 following
a civil war and with India's
help, opted to be an Islamic
state within few years
of its birth.
India
is a secular and a vibrant
democracy because it is
essentially Hindu. But
who is a Hindu? This question
was answered by Swami
Vivekanda (1863-1902)
in these words: ‘There
is a word which has become
very common as an appellation
of our race and our religion.
The world ‘Hindu’
requires a little explanation
in connection with what
I mean by Vedantism. The
word ‘Hindu’
was the name ancient Persians
used to apply to the river
Sindhu. Whenever in Sanskrit
there is an 's', it changes
into 'h’ in ancient
Persian ', this is how
‘Sindhu’ became
‘Hindu’ ;
and you are all aware
how the Greeks found it
hard to pronounce ‘h’
and dropped it altogether,
so that we became Indians.
Now this word ‘Hindu’,
whatever might have been
its meaning in ancient
times, has lost all its
force in modern times;
for all the people that
live on this side of Indus
no longer belong to one
religion. There are the
Hindus proper, the Mohammedans,
the Parsees, the Christians,
the Buddhists, and Jains.
The word ‘Hindu’
in its literal sense ought
to include all these;
but as signifying the
religion, it would not
be proper to call all
these Hindus’15
(from
a lecture delivered in
Madras (Chennai) commonly
titled 'Vedanta in its
application to Indian
Life’ in 1897 after
returning from his first
tour of the West.)
What
constitutes India? Is
it a merely geographic
entity? Revolutionary
Netaji Subhas Chandra
Bose, perhaps the epitomic
practitioner of Secularism
and national integration
in Azad Hindu Fauj (Indian
National Army) observes-
‘ Geographically,
India seems to be cut
out from the rest of the
world as a self-contained
unit. Bounded on the north
by the mighty Himalayas
and surrounded on both
sides by the endless ocean,
India affords the best
example of a geographical
unit. The ethnic diversity
of India has never been
a problem- for throughout
her history she has been
able to absorb different
races and impose on them
one common culture and
tradition. The most important
cementing factor has been
the Hindu religion. North
or South, East or West,
wherever you may travel,
you will find the same
religious ideas, the same
culture and the same tradition.
All Hindus look upon India
as the Holy Land.16
Thus
the word ‘Hindu’,
with its derivatives ‘Hinduism’
and ‘Hindutva’,
has a nationalistic rather
than religious or sectarian
origin in hoary past of
civilisation. And despite
being much de-valorised
through ordeals of history
it still retains a nationalistic
connotation.
Even though the word Hindu
is a nationalistic term
it was natural that Hindus
should follow some religious
beliefs and rites. Hindus
themselves vaguely called
it Sanatan Dharma (Eternal
Religions), while others
referred to it as Hinduism.
To debate about its merit
is one thing but to say
it is communal or sectarian
will be quite another.
Hinduism is as natural
to Hindus as the religion
of ancient Greeks or Egyptians
is to them. But unlike
in those religions, Hinduism
had a strong body of philosophic
thoughts viz. Vedas, Upanishads,
Bhagavad Gita etc. which
ensured its vitality.
Those magnificent civilisations
that erected spectacular
monuments in stones, assigning
more importance to body
than soul vanished from
the face of the earth
under external aggression.
But Hindus erected monuments
of minds which survived
through millennia.
A
body decomposes and disintegrates
according to the laws
of nature when the soul
leaves it. But can the
soul live in this world
except through the body?
Certainly not, whether
we have to achieve something
material or spiritual
it is possible only through
the medium of physical
body. In fact a weakened
body could hamper even
the most abstruse and
philosophic pursuit. So
if the Sanatana soul of
Hinduism has to survive
in the world it needs
the body called Hindutva.
The
critics of Hindutva, either
through ignorance or mischief,
project it as generally
anti-minority and specifically
anti-Muslim. Balraj Madhok,
a former President of
BJS says, ‘The Arabs,
Turk and Mughal invaders
came to India on the band-wagon
of Islam. They justified
their vandalism and barbaric
acts against people of
this country, their shrines
and holy places in the
name of Islam. Therefore,
the opposition to foreign
rule also came to be construed
as opposition to Islam
and Hindus, the national
of Hindustan began to
be looked upon as upholders
of a creed hostile to
Islam. This was a misconception.
It was struggle of a people,
a nation, which comprehended
followers of diverse religious
sects or ‘Panths’
against foreign invaders
and their agents in the
country’ 17.
But
should a nationalistic
ideology whose crystallisation
predates the emergence
of Christianity in 1st
century Palestine or Islam
in 7th century Arabia
by thousands of years,
need to certify its bona
fide at all. After all
India has seen several
invasions before Muhammad
bin Qasim set his foot
here in 712 AD. Noted
freedom fighter and interpreter
of Hindu history Veer
Savarkar says- ‘Indian
settlement and kingdoms
in those days nearly 2500
years ago-were spread
on the other side of the
Indus River. What we call
Hindukush Mountain today,
Greeks called it Paropnisus.
Today's Afghanistan was
called 'Gandhar'. The
archaic name of Afghanistan
was Ahiganistan. The river
Kabul was called 'Kuva'.
Large and small kingdoms
of Indians were spread
on territories of Hindukush
mountain’18.
The
point to be noted here
is that the cultural boundaries
of India (Hindustan) were
much expansive to the
West than they are now.
In fact, the cultural
penumbra of India spread
from Central Asia to South
East Asia in ancient age
without any political
invasion. However this
spread of Hindu-Buddhist
culture was punctuated
by attacks on India by
Greeks, Sakas, Kushana,
and Huns between 327 BC
to 4th C AD. They were
able to wrest some part
of India for some time
before being won back
by the Hindus. But the
most important thing to
note is that long before
they have been physically
defeated by the Hindus
they became culturally
Hindutised. In 2nd century
BC we come across a reference
of Heliodorous, a Greek
ambassador of King Antialkidas
of Taxilla, setting up
a Garuda column at Besnagar
in honour of Vasudeva
(Lord Krishna)
19. Greeks
authors admired the Indian
sages. Hellenic rulers
and statesman listened
with respectful attention
to Indian philosophers.
One of the greatest Indo-Greek
Kings, Menander displayed
great predilection for
Buddhist teachings and
issued coins of Buddhist
type. Greek meridarchs
are mentioned in Kharoshthi
inscriptions as establishing
Buddhist relics and sanctuaries.
Indian cultural influence
on the Greeks of Egypt
has been traced in the
Oxyryhynchus papyri 20.
The
last external onslaught
prior to Islamic invasion
was unprecedented in its
ferocity. It was the 'scourge
of civilisation' invasion
of barbaric Huns and lasted
for nearly 100 years in
5th century during the
Gupta Empire. The Huns
were more interested in
destruction than victory-
and destroyed the Taxilla
university and library.
But, here also the most
ruthless Hun King Mihir
Gul, Attila of India,
became a worshipper of
Rudra (Shiva). But howsoever
mighty, even the Huns
had to ultimately yield
before the resilient Hindu
confederacy determined
to win back freedom of
their nation. And what
happened to the Huns?
They shared the same fate
with Greeks, Sakas, and
Kushanas. They remained
alive in genealogical
currency but culturally,
religiously and historically
became Hindus.
Hindus
are definitely not the
only chivalrous or patriotic
nation in the world. But
no other nation has maintained
an unbroken continuity
of tradition and historic
integrity facing so many
invasions. What makes
them proudly distinctive
is that many formidable
invaders have been assimilated
into its stream like a
satchel of salt. Compare
Hindus with mighty civilisations
in Mid-East like Sumerian,
Babylonian, Phoenician,
Egyptian, Carthagians,
Canaanites, Abyssinians
which have been Arabised
and Islamised in 7th century
by a victorious expedition
originating Hijjaj and
Greeks and diminished
Assyrians follow their
ancient language but have
undergone change of religion.
Rightly
had Allama Iqbal noted
in his Tarana-e-Hind in
1904- ‘Roma ho Yuna
ho sab mit gaye jahan
se, magar baki hai ab
tak nishan hamara/kuch
baat hai ki hasti mit-ti
nahin hai hamari/sadiyon
raha hai dushman daur-re
jahan hamara/Sare jahan
se accha hindoositan hamara’.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS)
Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS), roughly translated
as National Volunteer
Fraternity was established
by Dr. Keshav Baliram
Hedgewar in Nagpur (Maharasthra)
in 1925. As one could
see the word 'National'
has been used here over
'Hindu' to allay any apprehensions
about its scope and nature.
This apolitical and non-religious
body from its humble beginnings
Sangh has now spread to
nearly 30,000 places-
called 'Shakhas' (branches)
encompassing a total of
50,000 actual working
centres meeting daily
or at frequent intervals
leaving no part of the
country untouched.
21
A
medical graduate, Dr Hedgewar
chose not to join the
ranks of professional
practitioners but devote
his life to service of
motherland and society.
Initially he preferred
revolutionary means to
overthrow the British
rule. But when Gandhiji
dawned over the Indian
political firmament with
his message of non-violent
struggle, Dr. Hedgewar
became convinced about
its extreme suitability
for Indian conditions.
As a follower of Gandhian
means, Dr. Hedgewar vigorously
participated in Non Co-operation
Movement in Central Province
and consequently was sentenced
to one year of rigorous
imprisonment on charges
of sedition. When he came
out of prison the situation
around him had dramatically
changed for the worse.
Gandhiji had withdrawn
his Non Co-operation Movement
for attainment of Swaraj
due to an incident of
violence, whereas the
failure of Pan-Islamic
Khilafat Movement for
restoration of Khalifa
(Caliphate) in far-off
Turkey has dismayed Muslims.
The insidious Mopla riots
in Malabar, Kerala, and
had led to the mindless
butchering of thousands
of Hindus- and neither
any Muslim leader nor
Gandhiji condemned it
22.
Hindus
were at receiving end
of communal riots in 1923
so much so even Gandhiji
had to say, ‘An
average Hindu is a coward
and an average Muslim
is a bully”’
23 and
Pt. J.L. Nehru noted in
his autobiography, ‘Many
a Congressman was a communalist
under a nationalist cloak’
and about Hindus as given
to 'stupor and baseless
slordliness’24.
Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya
noted in Hindu Mahasabha's
Belgaum session in 1924
that ‘But for the
weakness and fear enveloping
the Hindus, many Hindu-Muslim
clashes could have been
averted. These clashes
have driven the country
to its present critical
situation. It is, therefore,
imperative to eradicate
the weakness of the Hindus
which has been largely
responsible for the Muslim
violence’25.
While
the Congress tried to
buy peace through appeasement,
Dr. Hedgewar's apolitical
alternative was simple.
He realised that Hindus
form the essence or the
core of India and the
predominant onus of either
gaining independence from
British, developing the
country, or making it
a strong power lay on
their shoulders. So Hindus
must be individually resolute,
collectively cohesive
and socially dedicated.
He once said to Gandhiji,
though to no avail, that
‘long before this
slogan of Hindu-Muslim
Unity came into vogue,
many leading Muslims had
identified themselves
with our nation and worked
shoulder to shoulder with
Hindus under the leadership
of Lokmanya Tilak, Barrister
M.A. Jinnah, Dr. Ansari,
Hakim Ajmal Khan.’26.
RSS
is a social organisation
and never had a political
agenda. But since in pre-independent
era, the Congress was
viewed more as a political
movement by Indians (but
not by most of the Muslims)
than as a party and Dr.
Hedgewar, who had the
background of Congress,
extended moral support
to Congress. He observed
in 1930 after Congress
had adopted Purna Swaraj
(or Complete Independence)
as its goal- ‘The
Hindu culture is the life-breath
of Hindustan. It is therefore
clear that if Hindusthan
is to be protected, we
should first nourish Hindu
culture. If the Hindu
culture perishes in Hindustan
itself, and if the Hindu
society ceases to exist,
it will hardly be appropriate
to refer to the mere geographical
entity that remains as
Hindusthan. More geographical
lumps do not make a nation.
The Sangh will co-operate
with the Congress in the
efforts to secure freedom,
so long as these efforts
do not come in the way
of preserving our national
culture’27.
Sangh
views society as a living
organism, symbolically
'Virat Purusha', a single
unified colossal personality
marked by an organic relationship
of all limbs and organs
with one another and with
the body as a whole. Imbued
with genuine spirit of
social service, Swayamsevaks
(literally meaning volunteers),
they rush to provide immediate
relief to the people whenever
natural or manmade calamities
strike.
Sangh
volunteers its services
regardless of religion.
The prompt service rendered
by Swayamsevaks of Bhiwani
on November 12, 1996 after
fatal mid-air collision
of a Saudi Arabian and
Kazak aircraft at Charkhi-Dadri
(Haryana) off the Indira
Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi, earned for
RSS much attention of
the national press especially
because most of the 312
victims were Muslims.
C.M. Ibrahim, a Muslim
Central Minister, showered
laurels upon RSS rescue
and relief work at Charkhi-Dadri.
The Sangh rejects the
division of Hindu Society
on caste lines and believes
and practices social equality.
In RSS camps (for its
members, lasting several
days) there are joint
meals, much to the dismay
of caste traditionalists.
In fact Swami Karpatri
(founder of Ram Rajya
Parishad, a political
outfit active in 1950s
and 60s which wanted ‘re’-institution
of Shastrik law, caste
system and all) wrote
a book, RSS and Hindu
Dharma in which he condemned
the Sangh's rejectction
of caste.
Both
in pre and post-independent
India, Sangh has been
the victim of State repression.
It was temporarily disbanded
by the governments of
the day, but the ban had
to be lifted every time
for they failed to substantiate
the charges. First time
the RSS was banned following
the assassination of Gandhiji
in 1948 and many Swyamsevaks
were thrown behind the
bars but the government
had to rescind the order
when RSS was honorably
exonerated by the judiciary.
Subsequently, it was banned
during emergency (1975)
