Title: Comrades in arms
Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: The Hindustan
Times
Date: April 11, 2000
The agony of K.M. Shrimali
(Saffron socialism, April 7, The Hindustan Times) can be well understood.
He is not alone among those who have been fervently wishing a 1979-type
action replay by the socialists in the National Democratic Alliance.
The RSS question had
been the reason for the collapse of coalitional experiments in the past.
In 1967, alleged RSS infiltration in educational institutions and in the
administration had caused commotion within the coalition governments in
the States; for instance, it led to a change of portfolios of the Bharatiya
Jana Sangh (BJS) ministers in UP. In 1977-78, the charge of "dual membership"
wrecked the Janata Party. Thus, for the secularists, the RSS has been like
an unprogrammed creation of surrealist art which can be used for their
political agenda as and when they want. However, the alleged "hidden agenda"
of the RSS has failed to create a similar crisis in contemporary times.
This is because there are very few contradictions between the socialists
and the RSS.
Recently, Saifuddin Soz
has written a letter to the BJP allies stating: "Now the BJP's hidden agenda
is unraveling itself and your continued silence is interpreted as your
agreement to what is happening around in pursuit of the RSS agenda." A
week later (January 27), Congress leader (now a rebel) Chhabildas Mehta
sent a similar letter to the allies: "The country will have a fascist system
by your support, directly or indirectly." The CPI has been more categorical.
Its party organ New Age (February 13) attacked Mr Fernandes, Sharad Yadav
and Ramvilas Paswan as "power hungry" and "fair weather cocks."
The fact is that unlike
1977, there is no Charan Singh aspiring for the Prime Ministership or Madhu
Limaye acting as a destructive instrument within the formation on behest
of the communists. The secularists are perplexed to find that the RSS has
no longer remained the cause of embarrassment for non-saffron politicians.
For Prof Shrimali and his ilk, the pro-conversion campaign is also a brand
of secularism and any deterrence to it or even an appeal for a debate on
it becomes communal. Not only Mr Fernandes, but Gandhians too have backed
the Sangh parivar on the issue of conversion.
The strategic balance
achieved by the "RSS-socialists" combine must be understood in the ideological
evolution of both the streams. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh rejected the dichotomy
between the Left and Right in the Indian context. However, the "cow alliances"
which it pursued with parties like the Hindu Mahasabha, Ram Rajya Parishad
(RRP) and the Swatantra Party in the fifties gave it the image of a Rightist
formation.
But things radically
changed by the mid-sixties. The BJS refused to merge with the RRP since,
"its roots do not lie in the cottage of Swami Karpatrijee (founder of the
party) but in the palace of zamindars and Marwaris."
(Panchajanya, January
25, 1953). Moreover, the party expelled 11 legislators who opposed the
land reform bill in Rajasthan. Its disapproval of the Masani (Swatantra
Party leader) line pursued by one of its founder leaders, Balraj Madhok,
on issues like the nationalisation of banks, privy purse and trade union
strikes brought it nearer to socialists.
The socialist alliance
with the RSS is a logical ideological evolution because the RSS has not
been founded on the principles of caste or class. That is why its pracharaks,
the epitome of the organisation, are indoctrinated to achieve egalitarianism.
The Sangh weltanschauung focuses on an individual's qualities rather than
on social or economic status. K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, presumably
aware of the role of the money bag Hindus, (whom Swami Vivekananda called
a "living corpse") in social and political movements, evolved a unique
method of Gurudakshina for donations. That is why Deen Dayal Upadhyay said,
"It is sheer foolishness to believe that the Sangh aims to perpetuate capitalism
or zamindari. Are thousands of educated youths dedicating their lives,
leaving their homes and hearth, for a handful of zamindars?"
Socialists reciprocated
the RSS' perception on minorities, secularism, the language question, on
relations with Pakistan and on the issue of Indian nationality. Ram Manohar
Lohia inculcated cultural elements like the Ramayan Mela, in his political
programmes.
Jayaprakash Narayan characterised
the RSS as "revolutionary" while veteran socialist Achyut Patwardhan said
that "there seems to be no ground to sustain the charge that the RSS is
opposed to a radical orientation of state policy in matters economic and
political. The charge that the RSS is fascist which Indira Gandhi and the
CPI had repeated ad nauseam, has recoiled on them with ignominy, and Madhu
Limaye does less than justice to his own sagacity in repeating it in the
company of the old sinners of the CPI."
Thus George Fernandes
is no exception. His actions and perceptions reflect constructive socialist
agenda. His formal link with the RSS begins with his meeting with M. S.
Golwalkar in 1958. The RSS activities among the tribals has brought him
closer to it.
Decades ago, he inaugurated
the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram's London branch. Like his predecessors, he too
realised the need for a rational outlook towards secularism instead of
being guided by vote bank politics. Never perhaps was the metamorphosis
so happy. If Prof Shrimali cannot denigrate Lohia, JP and Patwardhan for
supporting the RSS, how can he accuse George Fernandes?
