One of the most contentious subject matters of the contemporary day Indian Politics is the association of the ruling party, the BJP, with this socio-cultural Organization, or wing/cadre, so to say, the RSS — an institution which visibly embodies a Hindu symbolism to its apparel, while the lay Hindu masses have the impression of it and its associates such as ABVP and VHP, as their ‘Taranhaars’ and ‘Bhagyavidhatas’.
What makes it contentious is precisely this Hindutva flavor which pokes to a westernized/Secular mind as a threat to the parliamentary & ‘pluralistic’ democracy, as they go on throwing the same rant ad nauseam, “India is on the verge of becoming a Hindu Majoritarian, thus a ‘Fascist’ state,” which poses a direct threat to the ‘welfare’ and co-existence of the ‘minorities’ living in the country, which were ‘unified’ by the British under a deified Constitution.
An Identity, whether cultural, religious, or ethno-linguistic, is formed and foisted by the notions of the In-group(s) and Out group(s) — Swayam-Bodha and Shatru-Bodha.
The markers a specific identity remain amenable only to the dynamics of time frame and socio-political realities, but the fount of those identities, unless diluted or subverted, remains grounded as long as the identifications prevail. This is as true for religious identities as it is for ethno-linguistic ones, or even more so.
Aravindan Neelakandan in his thesis, posits that Hindu-tva — an indigenous connotation to the native faith systems, as opposed to Hindu-ism which gives the impression of fossilization and static mores and traditions, as it is fundamentally opposed the dynamic equilibrium of dharma traditions, is not merely a socio-political or religious/spiritual connotation, but the larger Civilizational connotation that is fount, the essence of everything that emanates from the Hindu Civilization, be it religion, philosophy, ethics, the social fabric, as well as the elaborate sciences of self-discovery.
While as per J. Sai Deepak, Hindutva is a “Religio-Political civilizational construct, which is resistive in nature, to protect Hindu Dharma and its adherents.” Thus, “While Hinduism is the object of protection, Hindutva is both the sword as well the shield to protect (Safeguard) the Hindu nature (Identity).”
Thereby, it seeks to boldly assert this underlying distinction that differentiates the Bharatiya Civilization from all other which went extinct, being the spirit, the ‘Tattva’, the dynamism and flexibility that sustains and preserves the practices, the social and individual order, and the harmony vis-à-vis different Sampradayas and traditions.
This is the spirit which Rabindranath captured in his esoteric poetry as “Bharata Bhagya Vidhata”, written in a spirit of mystical awe one morning. And NOT as a self-seeking sycophancy for some Colonial British Overlord, as people have quite often misconstrued, secularized further to be adapted as the ‘Indian’ national anthem.
Shrikant Talageri sums it up in his exposition on Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism. Simply put, it is “an ideology for the defence of Hindu society, culture and civilization.”
Coming back to the RSS, the organization was founded in 1925, at a time of a great political upheaval when Islamic-aggression, separatism, and pan-Islamism had taken the stranglehold of Indian Polity. It worried the Hindu leaders greatly to see the loss of this civilizational consciousness, and the assertions came as late as early 1900s, most notably as an aftermath to the division of Bengal on religious lines by Lord Curzon.
But, people like Lokmanya Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai were branded as extremists and kept at bay, as their assertions and political goals for the welfare of the Hindu Society, Civilization and the people, and the modes and methods to implement that vision went strictly against the ‘Secular’ and Moderate ideologues of Indian National Congress, which was unambiguously founded to act as a safety valve and a mediator between the ‘savage’ natives of the land, and their ‘Colonial’ overlords, in an attempt to stop and possibly subvert the re-instantiation of something of 1857 sorts and to keep the larger Indian society in check.
The founder of the RSS, Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar was distressed by the sight of the lack of political consciousness and perception of community interests in larger Hindu Society.
Also, that the Hindu Society was ‘divided’ in different factions of Jati-Varna(caste for the recall value) and had no larger consciousness of the larger Socio-Political ‘unity’ or consolidation — i.e. Sangthan.
Inspired by the Anusilan Samiti from Bengal which had had a keen impact on his mind, he formulated a framework for the invocation of ‘nationalism’ in the Hindu psyche, transcending the Jati/Varna boundaries, as an attempt to foster the larger sense of ‘Hindu unity’.
The ‘national’ (as in Rashtriya) society in his conception was only constituted by Hindu society, and Hindu on top of that was religious, spiritual, and civilizational marker, and not merely some ‘geographical’ identification. He was a staunch nationalist par skepticism and was imbued with the spirit of standing up for the larger Hindu cause. These were the founding ethos of RSS.
This vision would often seem to stand in a stark contrast when positioned against the views of someone like Mohan Bhagwat, the contemporary RSS chief (Sarsanghchalak).
From his popular ‘same DNA’ rant to the blatant suggestion for the Hindu youth to forget the Hindu ‘Devi-devatas’, the very fount of Hindu identity and tradition and inter-generational exchange, and let them recede to the peripherality!
On the matter of rampant religious conversions by the missionaries in the ‘tribal’ belts of Bharat are just not heeded attention and on the question of the steps to revert them back to their native faith is frowned upon. As Mr. Bhagwat posits that everyone living in the geographical boundaries of India is a ‘Hindu’ and hence no need for any ‘Ghar-Wapasi’!
RSS wallows in some fantastical notions of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ while the Hindu remains in his/her own civilizational homeland as a citizen of third grade.
Furthermore, as per Mr. Bhagwat, there can be no Hindu Rashtra without the involvement of Muslims!
By that definition, Bharat has always been a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ up until the advent of British, which was marked by the loot, slavery, heinous & inhumane crimes perpetrated upon the Hindus. One wonders if that’s the conception of ‘Hindu-Rashtra’ which the RSS seeks to establish!?
Hindu as per his definition seems to be a collective notion of mutually incoherent, inchoate, and disparate groups, and hence even the Muslims and Christians can also be accommodated within the same tag, notwithstanding the foundationally incompatible worldviews and their exclusivist and aggressively assertive ideologies.
This is but an utterly disparaging and deprecatory stance coming from person who is the chief of a supposed Hindu organization, that works to further weaken & alienate the Hindu psyche and leaves Dharma open for digestion, which in turn serves as a fertile ground for the ‘Breaking India Forces’ to operate.
If scrutinized, quick comes the counter, promptly stating that whosoever asks a Muslim to leave ‘India’ is NOT a HINDU.
Given the status of Hindus in the Secular Socialist Republic of India, this remark of Hindus wanting to relocate the Muslims out of India, on account of their identity assertions and as an attempt to solve the pressing issues as a society, this act of quickly diverting things to anti-Islamic animus given the historical backdrop, is but too far-fetched.
A Hindu just wants to be treated in an equal and judicious manner, at par with the member of every other community. They do not want to be treated as apartheid in their own civilizational homeland. So, this notion of Hindus being in position of dominance and commanding Muslims to leave India is purely juvenile. (Or was it Kashmiri Hindus who exiled the ‘poor’ Muhammadan, keeping their woman and kids, in a Vedic-Compliant code of slavery, hegemonical oppression, and religious bigotry!?)
As appalling as these positions of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat are, one is still comfortable thinking of them as a “Hindu organization,” inspite of their utter lack of ‘Shatru-Bodha’ and ‘Swayam Bodha’. But the Question which is eerie and pressing is how can a “Hindu” organization that was specifically founded for the Hindu causes, embody such an attitude towards the Hindus and Hindu Society at large, that is utterly apathetic to say the least and malevolently fatal in the long Run.
We’ll Scavenge through the history of RSS and their stances and attitudes manifesting in different circumstances towards the Hindu Society and Hindu causes, as an attempt to underscore the themes and the psychology that permeates the ‘Sangh’, in varied instances — institutional and political, that underpin its origin, dissemination, and evolution.
First Instance –1927
Anna Sohani, a prominent Karyakarta from Nagpur as Dr. Hedgewar himself and inspired by him, showed a keen knack for ‘Lathi’ combat when the Nagpur riots of 1927 took place.
He trained the Karyakartas and organized them in 16 squads to combat the Jihadi Rioters. (Yes, Rioters and Terrorists DO have a religion and a very specific one on top of that. Appalling and bigoted, isn’t it!)
Anna Sohani’s counter measures against the Jihadi aggressors proved out to be remarkably effective and it delighted the ‘common-Hindus’ to witness it for the first time an organization standing up for them and safeguarding their interests.
As the matter of a norm on Fridays after the ‘Namaz of Jummah’, which is the connecting link of the Muhammadans across the globe to the larger ‘Spirituality’, as an instance showcasing and embodying the solidarity with their Muslim brethren worldwide — the Ummah, and the larger Islamic cause, in a Dar-ul-Harb (The Land of War as opposed to Dar-ul-Islam) like Bharat, ridiculing the ‘Kafir’ adds further points in Muslim credits for their entry into the ‘Jannat’, the Islamic Paradise. The Instances of the beholders of ‘Deen’ staging riots and causing all sorts of deeds so as to show their ‘disgust’ and ‘disgrace’ towards the Kafirs are but staggering and colossal.
Anna Sohani proposed a effective counter-measure to the rioters — a proactive step to contain such cantankerous provocation from the Muhammadans on Fridays — as the Karyakartas would march around all the prominent mosques across the city dressed in the RSS uniform to counter the vigilantism — if they encountered any — after Jummah’s Namaz.
What followed might surprise the reader, as Dr. Hedgewar, instead of least bit of appreciation or perspective, looked down and frowned upon this stance of a close associate himself.
“Hedgewar vetoed Sohani’s proposal to march uniformed RSS members in front of mosques on Friday as an unnecessarily provocative act.”
But Anna Sohani being a spirited individual stood firm in his grounds, and rightly so, seeing the practical implication of his strategic views.
The conflict of Interests between Anna Sohani and his ambitions towards safeguarding his community and keeping the Jihad Aggression in Check, and Mr. Hedgewar and his Institutional framework became this sharp that Anna Sohani left RSS in 1928!
Second Instance — 1932
Dr. Balakrishna Munje, a staunch nationalist and then president of Hindu Mahasabha and its representative in the first Round Table Conference, organized in London, in his speech at the session of Hindu Mahasabha held in Nagpur in 1932, voiced his concerns on the grave subject matter of the ‘Transfer of Power’.
He was concerned that if the Transfer of Power did indeed take place, whom would the British relinquish the State Power of India to — Muhammadans or Hindus?
His Concerns were twofold:
Firstly, if the British transferred the state Power to Muhammadans, what was the probability that they won’t transact this nascent sovereignty of the ‘nation’ to the Muhammadan Emir of Afghanistan for a Shariah compliant rule. Barely surprises one, as it directly emanates from the fount of their very ideology, their Scriptures, is considered ‘divinely’ ordained, and has been the hardline position of the community’s thought leader from Sirhindi to Dehlawi, and from Syed Ahmed Khan & Ali brothers to Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Secondly, if indeed the British favored the Hindus and entrusted them with the State power, what was the insurance that the Hindus could keep the Islam aggression and Jihad vigilantism in check?
One needs to take a moment to appreciate this keen foresight of Dr. Munje, in retrospect to the subsequent division of Bharat on the basis of religion and utter inability and failure of the Indian state to keep in check, let alone counter, contain, or annihilate the Islamic aggression or taking it upon itself to dismantle the underlying coloniality and imperialist ethos.
What followed Dr. Munje’s speech is something to note. Dr. Hedgewar read about what the former had conveyed the next morning and headed to his residence with a companion ‘Sanghi’ in an anguished fury.
Upon reaching his residence, he showed an audibly antagonistic stance against his views and severely rebuked him stating that “attaining ‘Freedom’ from the British” was the primary and the ultimate aim of ‘their movement’! And hence everything else like the perpetually existent civilizational threat was but secondary and relatively unimportant.
Wasn’t Dr. Hedgewar cognizant of the nature of the ‘Raktbeeja’?
Third Instance — 1934
This instance might appall some, but Mr. Mohandas (and NOT ‘Mahatma’) Gandhi visited the Shakha of RSS in 1934. One if well aware of Gandhi’s self-alienation from the Hindu consciousness and his colossally disastrous misrepresentation of Dharmic values such as Ahimsa, Sarv-dharm-Sambhav, and Satyagraha, in order to suit and validate his already established and unjustified positions, and his lifelong pro-Islamist views even if that meant asking ‘Hindu’ masses to succumb to the genocidal slaughter, would know what implications Gandhi’s views towards a certain subject matter carry.
And there it was. Gandhi was pleased to see the workings and the Modus-operandi of the RSS! It forces one to ask what was this submissive pacifist and a proud ‘Dhimmi’ apologist, and an extoller for Islam and Muhammadan aggression as ‘their duty to their religion’ like Gandhi doing in a “Hindutva-vadi” institution and instead of rebuking or chiding them out of his colonial guilt and apologetic attitude, he was visibly pleased?
Not only that, Gandhi asked Hedgewar as to why he didn’t set up such an institution within the Congress!
Dr. Hedgewar responded that he had indeed tried to setup an institution of RSS kind (the pre-cursor to RSS) alongside one of his close consorts. But the institution couldn’t be effective for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the ‘Sahebs’ and ‘Babus’ of Congress treated the karyakartas as “Muft ka Mazdoor,” and secondly the Congressmen saw them as opposed to their ‘communal amity’ ethos and couldn’t lend them space as it might increase the influence on the ‘Extremist’ grounds within the party as opposed to the their perpetually cherished position of ‘Moderates’. The former were evidently seen as the transgressors of the ‘Party-line’.
Fourth Instance — 1938
Nizam of Hyderabad as an archetypal Islamic Ruler (read tyrant) was explicitly malevolent and coercive towards the Hindus of that region, or to say his Hindu Kafir Subjects. Appalled by this suppression of their Hindu Brethren, Hindu Mahasabha and Arya Samaj resorted to stage a spirited protest, a true ‘Satyagraha’, for the grievances of Hindu Community in Nizam ruled region, and got support from all pro-Hindu quarters including the, institutions and leaders, and was headed by the Hindu Hriday Samrat, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar himself.
What is noteworthy is the attitude which the RSS typified. To quote R.K. Sinha,
“The Mahasabha expected that Dr. Hedgewar should participate in the Bhaganagar Satyagraha with the same intensity and commitment as he had displayed in his participation in the Jungle Satyagraha.”
Why should it have come off even as least bit surprising, given that the RSS professedly was an organization for Hindus, the call to stand up for the Hindus of Nizam ruled Hyderabad in solidarity with Hindu Mahasabha and Arya Samaj for the Hindu cause?
Mr. Sinha further writes,
“The Sangh and its scope of work had grown manifold from 1930 to 1937. The Mahasabha, in fact, was indirectly reliant on the Sangh. Dr Hedgewar was more concerned about the larger question of the country’s freedom, and did not wish to fritter away the Sangh’s energies and strength on immediate issues.
The enthusiasm he felt for any anti-imperialist agitation or movement could not be replicated in these kinds of agitations.”
They sent a ‘symbolic’ support of a 100 karyakartas and on that too, they called them back only after a couple of days.
What happened to the Hindu ‘Hit’ — the commitment for the welfare of the Hindu Samaaj? Or was it that the ‘Hindus’ under the rule of Islamic tyrant weren’t ‘Hindus’, or was the Nizam himself a Hindu as it is merely a ‘geographical identity’ and hence it was a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, thus no need for the Satyagraha!?
Very distinct parallels could be draw between the former instance and the circumstances of Hindus and BJP’s own Karyakartas in aftermath of West Bengal’s Assembly elections and utter apathy of the ‘Hindutva-vadi’ leaders.
Hindu ‘Hit’ was merely a trope for the aggrandization and expansion of the Institution, as is Hindutva today for RSS and BJP — A Cash Cow!
Savarkar was visibly appalled by this gesture of RSS and so were the other Hindu-Vadis. Sangh was fiercely criticized from all the Hindu Quarters , and rightly so.
To counter this, a piece from Bhaurao Deshmukh, a prominent RSS leader then, was published on April 8, 1940 in Vaktavya Kal, as quoted by Rakesh Sinha in his book on Hedgewar:
“I wish to tell those malicious minds that RSS is NOT a military force of Hindus, nor a military wing of Hindu Mahasabha. The Sangh’s endeavor is to make Hindus ‘Nationalist’ in a ‘True’ Sense. There is a vast difference between the RSS and other organizations. Such a ‘huge’ organization has certainly not been created to supply activists or members for others.
Irrespective of the excellent Military training provided in the Sangh, this is not its true form or content. It’s real work is to Intellectually shape the Nation’s mind that the spirit of ‘Nationalism’ can flow.”
Quite an startling view, given that the Sangh is the Karyakarta and Workforce supplier for the election campaigns of BJP, and hasn’t produced any of it’s own ‘Original’ Intellectual Discourse, but has constantly been submitting to the ‘Norms of the Day’, be it Nehruvian Secularism or the Gandhian Socialism!
Fifth Instance — 1956-57
Next Major Instance, which marks a running theme in RSS’ working and methodology comes straight from the autobiography of an intellectual giant himself, Shri Sita Ram Goel. As he recounts in his biography, How I Became a Hindu, that he was offered a ticket from Bharatiya Jansangh (BJS, the pre-cursor of BJP) from the Khajuraho constituency in Madhya Pradesh as a token of appreciation for his anti-communist work which was lauded by many leaders from RSS-BJS, during the Second General Elections in 1956–57.
“There were some revealing episodes during this election.
The wall- posters which the BJS had got printed in Delhi, announced that one of the main BJS aims was to abolish untouchability. The field workers were against putting up these posters because they thought that the considerable conservative section in the electorate was likely to go against me in that event. But I stuck to my guns, and insisted that the posters be put up. I do not know if they were used.
Secondly, I observed that the organizers of my public meetings did not relish my talk about principles involved between the Congress policies on the one hand, and the BJS policies on the other.”
“They asked me, again and again, to go for the Congress men as dishonest Socialists and Secularists while presenting the BJS as an honest adherent of Socialism and Secularism.
“Thirdly, the organizers warned me not to plead for a ban on cow-slaughter, and not to say anything against Pakistan whenever the meeting happened to be in a Muslim locality. Lastly, they asked to use English words and phrases quite frequently in my speeches lest people concluded that I was uneducated.”
His Words Speak Volumes in and of themselves.
It explicates this inherently entrenched and deep seated Inferiority Complex in the ‘Nationalists’ camp, and their irrepressible fetish for seeking validation from all quarters, with an apologetic attitude for their ‘Hindu’ position. I’m not gonna pass value judgments here, as one can draw on one’s own accord, but the themes and substructures of this post-colonial trauma and its practical implications on ‘Indian’ mind are something to be comprehended well.
Also, it is to be noted the parties and organizations with the disproportionate Hindu support base, like RSS and BJS, were not willing to take pro-Hindu stances amidst elections even after a genocidal partition on religious lines, and not willing to talk about the grave subject matters of Pakistan and ban on Cow-slaughter, in a ludicrous attempt to ‘lure’ Muslims to vote for them.
Where’s the Swayam-Bodha and Shatru-Bodha?
BJP trying hard to lure ‘Pasmandas’ is not an aberration but the continuation of an ‘abortive’ endeavor that permeates their institutional ethos through and through.
Goel ji, of course, did not heed to any of their validation seeking tropes and did not succumb to the ‘appeasing’ spirit, as it went against his Prakriti, intellectual endowments and inclinations, and most importantly his attitude towards everything that was dishonest and despicable. He would be the last person to conform to the ‘Party-line’.
Sita Ram Goel used to write very often for the Organiser, an RSS weekly, during the course of the year 1957, and he saw the workings and machinations of the RSS up close. His remarks and suggestion to various RSS personnel are something to be paid attention to:
“The one suggestion which I made to every RSS and BJS leader I met, was that the movement should have a full-blooded Hindu ideology of its own and process all events, movements, parties, and public figures in terms of that ideology, rather than live on borrowed slogans or hand-to-mouth ideas invoked on the spur of the moment.
They heard me patiently, and hardly ever contradicted me. But over a time, I realized that they did not take me seriously. Most of them were convinced that organization was all that mattered, and ideology was of little use.
I was sure that they were greatly mistaken. I could see their plight quite clearly as they tried to operate according to ground rules laid down by their opponents.”
He further points out the Intellect-phobia of RSS and its associates, and the ideological hollows that are apparent to most of us, even to the RSS folks themselves. He writes:
“They thought that my pre-occupation with ideology had something to do with my Communist background. I felt helpless.
“I also felt annoyed when I heard speaker after speaker in RSS gatherings pouring contempt on “intellectuals” who had read the books but who knew nothing about “practical problems.
“One of their pet stories was about a pandit who frowned upon a boatman for not knowing Panini, but whom the boatman pitied for not knowing swimming when the boat was in trouble.”
Something else that he noted was their absolute apathy on the mockery and ridicule of Hindu Gods and Goddesses or the Hindu traditions. They were alarmed and reactive only when it came to ‘Sangh’ and their ‘Adhikaris’, the leaders.
One of my RSS friends was recounting this instance in an evidently delightful fervor when the RSS karyakartas held a high position officer by the collar on the pretext of him not adding proper tokens of respect before their leader’s name and just saying it plainly.
Bhakti Rasa, indeed!
Shri Goel writes:
“One could say anything one chose about Hinduism, or Hindu culture, or Hindu society, or Hindu history, without drawing any reaction from an average RSS man.
He became warm or cold only when something favourable or unfavourable was said about his organization, or his leaders, or both.
I wondered what sort of a Hindu organization it was. I expected the RSS to be alive to Hindu causes rather than to the reputation of its organization or its leaders.”
Sixth Instance — 1977
After the emergency and the fall of Indira Gandhi’s government, the coalition government of Janata Party, in which Jan Sangh was a substantial faction, rose to power, headed by Morarji Desi as prime minister.
Janata Party not only frowned upon but also looked down upon the Jana Sangh, as they thought, and correctly so, that ‘their spine was held by RSS’, which they saw as an organization with ‘Communal’ connotations.
The Janata Party went on to suggest that RSS should drop the word ‘Hindu’ from the preamble of its constitution. Atal Bihari Vajpayee echoed the same opinion, elaborating that RSS being a ‘political organization’ should rid itself of the word ‘Hindu’.
What is far more astonishing is the ‘commendable zeal’ that RSS illustrated. They not only considered that stance (of removing the ‘Hindu’), but fervently agreed to look into the matter in their very next Session!
Also, while being the junior partner in Morarji Desai’s government, they repealed and invalidated all the major amendments to the constitution which were done during the Emergency while Indira Gandhi was the prime Minister. But they retained the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’. These terms are not mere hollowed definitions as they’re promptly resurrected every time for Hindu bashing and calling them ‘Communalists’ every time they try to assert their civilizational ideals and values in the wider public discourse.
Secular in contemporary parlance effectively just means ‘anti-Hindu’ and have very explicit Marxian dialectical connotations!
Also, they were and still are colossally ignorant about the nature of Islam, Islamic imperialism and Colonialism, and how this Raktbeeja manifests over and again in different garbs, but embodying the same ‘Hijazi’ spirit, as Muhammad Iqbal would say.
Note that the same Muhammad Iqbal who wrote ‘Saare Jahan se Accha’ in 1904, writes ‘Cheen-o-Arab Humara, Hindustan Humara…Muslim Hain Hum, Watan Hai Sara Jahan Humara’ by 1910!
Secularism, minority policies, patriotism are mere veneers to establish a conducive framework and organized institutional structure in place so as to facilitate the ultimate aim and working of Jihad, the conquest of India and reshaping it into an Islamic mould — Ghazwa-e-Hind.
Any healthy society has a ‘Shatru-Bodha’ as a healthy body recognizes what is and what’s not ‘harmful’ and launches a counter-measure so as to ensure the long-term health.
How much scarcity of ‘Hinduness’ does BJP and RSS have can be gauged from the very first session of BJP after it was founded in 1980. The Chief Guest of that ceremony was Mahomedali Currim Chagla, An ex-cabinet Minister in GOI and the ex-Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, who vehemently opposed and protested for the removal of the word ‘Hindu’ from Benaras Hindu University!
“As education minister, in 1964, when he was informed that vice chancellor of a university of Madhya Preadesh has spoken at an RSS meeting, he immediately wrote to the home minister, Mr Gulzarilal Nanda:
‘Vice chancellor of Ravi Shankar University gave a speech recently from the official platform of RSS praising the Sangh and holding it up to the people as an institution which had shown patriotism and helped the national cause.’”
Not satisfied with Nanda’s reply, he wrote to DP Mishra, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, stating that it was against the ethos of Indian constitution for the chancellor of an university to show his open support to something he denounced as ‘communal’, ‘anti-democratic’, and ‘anti-secular’.
Another instance of the utter lack of Shatru-Bodh can be gauged from the fact that Mr. K.S. Sudarshan, the ex Chief of RSS, was headed to offer Namaz on the day of Eid in 1990, and was stopped by Babulal Gaur. Claims are that he had converted to Islam within closed doors.
Morover, RSS has a Muslim Manch as an attempt to ‘facilitate’ the inter-community conversation. Nowadays showing remarkable zeal to celebrate Christmas suppers and allying with the missionaries and churches for their electoral dividend.
What is a Hindu Organization?
This begs the question that afterall what is a ‘Hindu’ Organization and what should be ideals and its modus-operandi vis-à-vis the Hindu Society and the community, and what are the yardsticks upon which a Hindu Organization is to be evaluated?
Here are some pointers:
- “Strengthening, reforming, revitalizing and reaffirming our
own religious, cultural, educational and social institutions and traditions;
- Exposing the true character of aggressive ideologies with
reference to their own sources and history and in the light of Hindu thought;”
- Has to lobby for the political & legal representation for the issues facing the Hindus and the Hindu Society, and establish a framework that facilitates the Hindu cause.
RSS Qualifies None.
RSS not only deprecates the Hindu Identity and the connotations which ensue with it, but also is anti-tradition (paramparas), anti-Shashtra, which effectively means that it is against the ethos of Dharma itself.
Furthermore, it looks down upon the ‘Intellectuals’ and is quite anti-intellect is its stances, doesn’t provide the Hindu community with either effective intellectual discourse, or political/legal representation. It also adds to the ‘pacifism’, that in and of itself is coward and apologetic stance for holding onto your very identity even at the face of wanton aggression, given that the situation of civilizational crisis hasn’t changed much since the time of Dr. Hedgewar, but it’s gotten worse!
Self assertion is NOT Violence or Supremacism. It is the Right of a community to stand up to safeguard its very existence and further its goals and interests, be it social, political, or of civilizational proportions.
On what grounds then it professes to be a ‘Hindu’ Organization?
— Hindutva: Origin Evolution and Future, Aravindan Neelakandan.
— India that is Bharat, J. Sai Deepak.
— Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism, Shrikant Talageri.
— Shatrubodh and Swayambodh by Pankaj Saxena & Raghav Krishna, Young Thinkers Forum.
— Story of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle.
— Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, R.K. Sinha.
— How I Became a Hindu, Sita Ram Goel.
— JNU: The Making of a University, Rakesh Batabya
— Time for Stock Taking, Whither Sangh Parivar? by Sita Ram Goel, VOI
— Sangh Parivar ki Rajneeti, Prof. Shankar Sharan.
There present essay is predicated upon the thesis of Mr. Pushkar Brat Agnihotri which he conveyed in a discussion with Mr. Sandeep deo, hosted on ISD. I’ve acquired his permission to transcribe, comment, & elucidate on themes relevant to his exposition, after having gone through the primary sources myself, for its wider dissemination into the public discourse.