Hindu Vivek Kendra

13. Sangh and the judiciary

13.1 In line with the standard canard against the Sangh, the Report alleges that 'numerous government reports have clearly indicted the Sangh for fomenting communal violence.' The authority used to justify this claim is that of AG Noorani, a known communist in India, and his article "A Half Century's Gory Record" in The Statesman, January 15, 2000. The article was accompanied by a cartoon showing a person in shorts (on which was inscribed the letters RSS) shooting at Mahatma Gandhi. The RSS filed a case against the publication, Noorani, and the cartoonist in the High Court of Delhi. In March 2002, The Statesman said in the court, "We wish to clarify that the publication was made without malice and with no intention to denigrate or defame any person or persons or RSS. We regret the publication." It should be stated that Noorani failed repeated to appeared before the Court and a non-bailable warrant had to be issued against him.

13.2 This is yet another example of the spit-and-run tactics in line with a 'true revolutionary' that is commonly applied when calumny against the Sangh is indulged in. Either the authors of the Report are ignorant of this case, or the Goebbles tactics of telling a lie a hundred times is put in place.

13.3 The allegation that evidence of Sangh's involvement in anti-social activities has a long history. When the Sangh was banned immediately after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in a letter dated November 10, 1948, to MS Golwalkar, as follows:

· In the course of the last year both the Central Government and the Provincial Governments have received a mass of information in regard to the objectives and activities of the R.S.S. This information does not fit in with what has been stated by you in this behalf. Indeed it would appear that the declared objectives have little to do with the real ones and with the activities carried on in various forms and ways by people associated with the R.S.S. These real objectives appear to be completely opposed to the decisions of the Indian Parliament and the provisions of the proposed Constitution of India. The activities, according to our information, are anti-national and often subversive and violent. You would appreciate, therefore, that mere assertions to the contrary do not help very much. ("Justice on Trial", p 16, Suruchi Prakashan, 1962.)

13.4 However, the Sangh was not charged either in the case of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi or the 'mass of information' was ever presented to a court of law to establish the charge of being 'anti-national, subversive and violent'.

13.5 Similarly, the allegation of the involvement of the Sangh in creating communal disturbance, as alleged by various commission of inquiry reports mentioned in the Report have never resulted in prosecution of any of the Sangh activists. Given the 'strong evidence' as claimed by the authors of the Report, it is indeed strange that governments which have been inimical to the Sangh have not found it worthwhile to prosecute the activists.

13.6 Government employment rules prohibit the employee to be a member of a political party. On this ground, many Sangh activists have had their services terminated. In each case, the courts have held the termination to be illegal, and the persons have been reinstated. This issue has been dealt with in a booklet entitled "Truth Triumphs: What the High Courts have to say on RSS" (ed Ram Mohan, Suruchi Sahitya Publication, 1977). The first paragraph of the booklet goes as follows:

· There could be nothing better than the considered pronouncements of the highest judiciaries of the land in exposing the outrageous falsehoods, -canards, allegations and mudslinging of the lowest order being repeatedly indulged in by the Govt. -against the RSS. High Court after High Court in different states have quashed the illegal malafide orders of suspension or dismissal issued by the Govt. against the RSS workers in the govt. service. The top insinuations of the RSS being 'subversive', 'violent' 'secret', 'communal', 'anti Muslim', 'political' and so on, have all been subjected to impartial judicial scrutiny & found to be entirely baseless. As many as ten High Courts Judgements - Indore (1955), Patna (1961), Bombay (1962), Allahabad (1963), Jodhpur (1965), Banglore (1966), Chandigarh (1967), Ahmedabad (1970) and Allahabad (1971) - have given identical verdicts nailing the charges leveled by the Government against the RSS.

13.7 Ram Mohan summarises these cases as follows:

· The above judicial verdicts not merely up hold the absolute innocence of RSS, they also reveal the mean and jaundiced attitude of the Govt. The utterly and irresponsible way in which the various State Governments have made such serious allegations as "subversive". "secret", "anti-secular", "violent" etc. against RSS is simply breath-taking. The high Courts even in their restrained language, have described the various charges as "without foundation", "a very unsatisfactory explanation", there is no evidence", "it would not be within reason to accept", founded on irrelevant consideration "arbitary" etc.

· In every case, the Government's order of suspension or dismissal of RSS workers, has been quashed and the Government was ordered to pay the costs.

· That the Government is even today indulging in the same old exploded allegations against the RSS and has even banned it as 'a danger to national security', only shows to what depths of falsehood & chicanery the Govt. can descend.

13.8 Mohan has also dealt with a case filed against the second chief of the RSS. he writes:

· No less a person than the previous Sarsanghachalak of RSS, Shri M.S. Golwalkar himself was tried in a court of law by the Government for this offence. The case against him was that he had delivered a speech at Darbhanga (Bihar) which had promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims and Christians of this country.

· The High Court of Bihar at Patna, (criminal) Revision No. 607 of 1959) carefully presented the RSS view point vis-a-vis Muslims and Christians, and held: analysed the entire speech in which Shri Golwalkar had said-

· "...... It is submitted that the principal object of the petstioner in delivering the speech was to point out the objectives of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and to emphasise that the members of the Sangh should strengthen Hindu Culture for the advancement of the Country. In my opinion the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner are not without force.

· "It is difficult to conclude from the speech read as a whole, that the intention of the speaker was either to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India or that the speaker had deliberately attempted to promote such feeling ... It has been submitted that section 153 A of the I.P.C. ought not to be applied to the case of an honest agitator where primary object was the redress of wrong, real or fancied, and who is not actuated with the mentality of a more mischief monger . In my opinion, in the instant case also, it is different to hold that the speaker had intended to promote feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens of India, not to speak of having delivered the speech with malicious intentions.

· "In my opinion ... it must be held that the ingredients of the offence under sections 153 A of the I.P.C have not been established in this case."