HVK Archives: Bhagwan Imperium and the RSS; and a response
Bhagwan Imperium and the RSS; and a response - The Pioneer
Bhupendra Yadav
()
7 October 1996
Title : Bhagwan Imperium and the RSS
Author : Bhupendra Yadav
Publication : The Pioneer
Date : October 7, 1996
Not just breakfast cereals. even nationalism conies
packed in different shapes and flavors. There is ethnic
nationalism which magnifies ancient tribal hatreds.
Bosnia is the worst example of it. Counterpoised to this
is civic nationalism of which Gandhiji's Congress was an
ideal expression. Then there is progressive nationalism
which transforms ex-colonies into vibrating democracies
and converts lifeless subjects into empowered citizens.
And, of course, there is reactionary nationalism which
bursts out in the impotent anger of the so-called foot-
ball hooligans, particularly in Europe.
However there are some non-nationalism which masquerade
as nationalisms. And dear friends in the RSS may please
forgive us for clubbing them into this category. They
might consider themselves ultranationalists or super-
patriotic entities but this self-image is at variance
with reality on several counts.
Take the most obvious thing first. viz the dress pre-
scribed for the RSS shakha. What is it? Among other
things, a thick leather belt fastened to an ill-fitting
khaki knicker. Who wore this dress around 1925 when the
RSS was born? Not the so-called Hindu nationalists like
Madan Mohan Malaviya or Lajpat Rai. The thick belt and
loose khaki knickers were a part of the uniform of the
colonial military police.
Then let us take the weapon used in the RSS' drill. The
Lathi. To defend themselves against British might,
militant nationalists like Shahid-e-Azan Bhagat Singh had
to resort to bombs and pistols. So, what purpose could a
lathi serve? Logically speaking, it could only be used
in creating ugly street brawls for hitting the malechhas
or for scaring those whose Holy Lands were not in Aryav-
rat. Around 1900, maintenance of law and order had
become the sole justification of colonial rule since
Lokmanya Tilak's Congress had rejected the British right
to preside over the "Moral and Material progress of
India".
By training its cadres in wielding lathis and egging them
on to use it on the streets, the RSS gave the colonial-
ists one legitimate reason to declare the permanence of
their empire. "If we withdraw, you will bleed each other
white", they were found of saying.
Even the ideological programme of the RSS contained
elements inimical to national honour and national recon-
struction. The one thing which received (and continues
to receive) priority in the RSS's scheme of things was
character-building. What was (or is) wrong with Indian
character? The colonialists debunked Indians as morally
corrupt and physically weak. Macaulay's much quoted
statement that Indians had neither character nor morals
was characteristic of that attitude. Instead of challeng-
ing this colonial nonsense, the RSS endorsed this under-
standing. Not only this, the RSS inaugurated a programme
to rectify the alleged cowardice and immorality of Indi-
ans, nay Hindus.
Nations are ideologically sustained by the use of symbols
on an everyday basis. So, saluting the national flag,
singing the national anthem and even worshipping the
national heroes are rituals necessary for India's sus-
tenance. But who are the RSS' heroes? The Trimurti of
Rana Pratap, Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh. Did they
right colonialism? No. Because they were not alive when
British rule was established.
Why couldn't, the RSS choose its heroes from tribal
revolutionaries like Birsa Munda, peasant Leaders like
Baba Ram Chandra or Moplah rebels like Saiyad Fadl? All
of these fought colonialists and were nationalists by
virtue of the sacrifices made by them to oust British
rule. Not opponents of British colonialism but combat-
ants against the Mughals were celebrated as national
heroes by the RSS. But the Mughals had been already
pushed into the dustbin of history when the RSS was born.
What remained instead for the RSS to oppose were Muslim
commoners, their personal laws and their religious be-
liefs.
Incidentally, after the fading out of socialism, Islam is
projected as the new global enemy by imperialists. And
by doing whatever it keeps doing in the name of cultural
nationalism,' Hindutva eta the RSS is only singing the
fresh signature tune composed by Lord Imperium. This Lord
Imperium is the new God the RSS seeks to add to our Hindu
Pantheon of 33 crore Gods. Long live Bhagwan Shri Imper-
ium and its hangers-on like the RSS.
Replies to Bhupendra Yadav's caricature of the RSS
Title : In defence of the RSS
Author : Sadhana Karnad
Publication : The Pioneer
Date : October 17, 1996
In mid - 17th century, Darwin proposed the theory of
evolution following which years later, Huxley became one
of the strongest proponents. The clergy didn't relish the
idea of a monkey displacing god.
A specially shocked Bishop Wilberforce asked Huxley in a
public debate. "Have you descended from a monkey on your
grandmother's or your grandfather's side?" This was a
typical example of `Ad hominem' (trivialism: an important
debate) which brought the house down but the theory has
survived and the debate long forgotten.
Bhupendra Yadav's piece on the RSS in The Pioneer,
abounds in such ad hominems and yet the RSS will survive
and the piece at be sold in raddi.
There is one more Latin term, `non-sequitur' (it doesn't
follow) useful to RSS baiter when short on facts but long
on ad hominems.
Yadav thinks that RSS cadres wielded lathis to defend
themselves against the British might From this emerges
another non-sequitur that RSS was inspired to adopt lathi
as a symbol of `Ahimsa' because the Mahatma and his
lathi were inseparable during his satyagraha walks.
In fact, an RSS swayamsevika can be visualised without a
lathi but not the Mahatma. Look at his statues in his
classic standing pose all over India.
Yadav attacks the RSS `Trimurty' of Rana Pratap, Shivaji
and Guru Govind Singh. Why? Because, "Did they fight
colonialism?" he questions.
Of course, Rana Pratap was from a royal family but Shiva-
ji was considered to be a shudra by the Maharashtrian
Brahmins of those days and hence, Shivaji's Rajyabhisheka
was performed by a Brahmin from Kashi. Guru Govind Singh
is a non-Hindu according to secularists.
Colonialism is a term related to western imperialism. The
Mughals were invaders. Shivaji did fight the Portuguese.
But for that matter did the Mughals fight colonialism?
Akbar couldn't tame the Portuguese on the high seas and
had to obtain their permission so that his relatives
could visit Mecca and Medina. Jahangir's concessions to
Sir Thomas Roe paved the way for the depredations of East
India Company.
Mr Yadav's history probably dawns with the birth of the
Indian National Congress which has spawned many scams
now. According to him, the INC is the only party which is
supposed to have fought colonialism and therefore even
1857 was not a fight against British imperialism.
For, we are told by secular historigraphers, that Laxmi
Bai, Nana Saheb and Bahadurshah Zafar were fighting for
their freedom. and going by his reckoning, the galaxy of
out saints and social reformers such as Buddha, Shankar-
acharya, Tukaram, Ramdas, Dyaneshwar, Tulsidas, Surdas,
Meera Bai, Kabir, Nanak, Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda, Ramak-
rishna, Vivekananda, Nobel Laureates Tagore and Raman,
scientists Bose, P C Ray, Meghnada Saha, Birbal Sahani,
to name a few are not worthy of out respect because they
did not join the much eulogised Quit India Movement.
Be that as it many, let us examine the role of the brave
Mopla rebels mentioned by Mr Yadav. The Mopla uprising in
Malabar, an agrarian Muslim revolt against the bourgeois/
Kulak Hindus according to Marxist historigraphy was an
endothernic manifestation of the Khilafat Alchemy, during
which, many Hindus fell to the sword of Islam or were
saved for Islam under the pain of minor surgery.
"But then, such things happen when the big tree falls,"
said Rajiv Gandhi who became prime minister of India
because his grandfather fought against econialism. There
brave Moplas did have genuine grievance. The Gorkhas, the
Garhvalis and Kanchins of Burma (Budhists) employed by
the British to crush the rebellion were after all Hindus.
The Khilafat alchemy, employed anti-British feeling as a
catalyst to distill a homogeneous compound (Hindu-Muslim
Unity) out of a disparate mixture in vain. That is be-
cause, as Hamid Daldai put it, for the Hindus is was a
question of "secular territorial nationalism" and for the
Muslims, it was extra-territorial royalty based on reli-
gion.
During the first world war, when Turkey on the side of
Germany, was fighting the British, the Indian Muslim's
sympathy lay with the Turks. To assuage their feelings,
British Prime Minister, Lloyd George had assured: "We are
not fighting to deprive Turkey of the rich and renowned
lands Asia Minor and Trace which are predominantly Turk-
ish in race."
After Turkey was defeated, Indian Muslims were apprehen-
sive that humiliating terms would be imposed on a defeat-
ed Turkey, so they flung, (through Khilafat), Lloyd
George's solemn promise at the British government that
Jajarat-ur-Arab including Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria and
Palestine, with all the holy places situated therein must
remain under the direct suzerainty of the Khilafat of
Turkey. Indian Muslims were least concerned about Arab
nationalism.
The irony of Khilafat movement was that in unwittingly
ended what it sought to perpetuated. Spearheading the
Young Turk Movement, Mustafa Kamal came to power and
abolished the sultanate, proclaimed Turkey a republic,
but tactfully retained the office of Khilafat to cater to
the spiritual needs of the Turks.
After the reigning Khalifa fled from Turkey, his nephew,
Abdul Majid Effendi became the Khalifa.
Historian Stephen King-Halt in his book `Our Own Times,
1913-1938, writes: "When certain leading Indian Muslims
addressed a letter to the new government pleading that
the Caliph (Khalifa) should be accorded better treatment
than he was receiving, Mustafa Kamal slezed upon the
incident as an excuse for abolishing the Caliphate on the
ground that is existence would lead to foreign interfer-
ence in Turkish affairs."
Writes Ram Gopal in Indian Muslims - A political History"
This news, which reached India on March 10, 1924, un-
nerved Khilafat leaders, who in there excitement, ap-
pointed a delegation to go to Turkey. But the delegation
was refused passports. As Jawaharlal Nehru observes in
his Discovery of India, Kamal's lack of religion, his
abolition of the Sultanate and Khalifat, the building up
of a secular state and his disbandment of religious
orders destroyed the dream structure that had grown up in
the Indian Muslim mind ever since the Mutiny.
The Khilafat movement, to quote Nehru again, had its
centre elsewhere, and when the core itself was eliminated
by the Ataturk the superstructure collapsed, leaving the
Muslims masses bewildered and disinclined to any politi-
cal action.
The collapse of the Khalifat cream so confused the Mala-
bar (Moplas) that they turned upon the hapless Hindus,
and that in a nutshell was the Mopla uprising.
Back
Top
|
