Author: M.G. Vaidya
Publication: The Organiser
Date: January 28, 2001
Reports published in a section
of media after the recent meeting of RSS leaders with the members of national
Minority's Commission in New Delhi have created confusion that the RSS
by recognising Sikhism as a separate religion, has changed its stand. The
meeting is also being wrongly connected with the meeting of certain Sikh
leaders with the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee expressing their grievances
against the so-called campaign of the Sangh workers against the Sikh community
in Punjab. In an exclusive interview to Organiser representative Pramod
Kumar, the RSS spokesperson Shri M.G. Vaidya while elaborating the RSS
stand on Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhisim as well as Christianity and Islam
has sought to clarify that the RSS never tried to obliterate the identity
of any religion. "We are for unity of religions, not for uniformity of
religions, " he said Excerpts:
Q. RSS has been of the opinion that
Sikhism is a part of wider Hindu society. But now it says that Sikhism
is a separate religion. Why this change in your stand?
A. There is no change in our stand.
We have always held that Sikhism is a separate religion. But Sikhs are
part and parcel of the great Hindu society. In fact Hinduism is not a.
religion. It encompasses a number of religions. As Dr. Radhakrishnan had
said: "Hinduism is a commonwealth of many religions." So among the Hindus
there are those who believe in idol worship i.e., the Sanatanis and there
are those who do not believe in idol worship, i.e., the Arya Samaj. There
are people who believe in the authority of the Vedas. But there are people
like Jains and the Buddhists who do not accept the authority of the Vedas.
The Hindu concept is broad enough to encompass many religions. Hindu is
a cultural concept. And culture means a certain value system. Those who
believe in this value system evolved by our forefathers, regard this land
as the Motherland are called Hindu. This is not an RSS invention. Article
25 of our Constitution has an explanation attached to it. It says, "In
Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 the reference to Hindus shall be construed as
including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist
religion and reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed
accordingly." The Hindu Code Bill is also applicable to the Sikhs, the
Jains and the Buddhists. Though, the law is applicable to Sikhs, Jains
and Buddhists, it is named as Hindu Code Bill. So Hindu is a very wider
concept. When we say that Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are different religions,
we mean that the religions are different, but as people, we are one. The
RSS perception regarding the nation is that we have one people, we have
one culture and therefore we are one nation.
Q. There is also a controversy regarding
the speech of Sarsanghchalk Shri KS Sudarshan delivered - at Chandigarh.
A. It was some time in April-May
last year, he delivered a speech in Chandigarh in which he quoted the scriptures
which said that Khalsa is a panth. Now we don't enter in to the semantics
of Dharma and Pantha. Dharma has a very wide meaning and we have been using
the word dharma in its widest sense all along. Religion is not dharma.
It is part of dharma. Why we call Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as part of
the Hindu cultural stream is because they believe in the plurality of religions.
They are "against proselytisation. They accept the validity of other faiths
and religions. But they have their own ideology, scriptures, founders and
modes of worship. In this sense they are different. They don't force other
people to come to their faith. This acceptance of the plurality is the
core of Hindu ethos and because all these religions, though they are different
from the Vedic religion, are still grouped with the Hindu people. The RSS
does not object to their separate existence and separate identity and the
RSS never tried to obliterate distinct identity of any group or faith,
Actually Hindu is the guarantee of all diversities and plurality.
Q. What about Islam and Christianity?
A. They are also separate religions.
But they should also accept the plurality. When the Church says that there
cannot be salvation outside the Church, then it takes an exclusive approach.
If the Church says that the Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, what about
the other people. We have no objection to what they say. You may accept
that Christ is the only Son of God. You may also think that the Pope is
ultimate authority. But you recognise that it is not for all others to
accept it. Just as we say that I accept the ultimate authority of Vedas.
But I don't insist and impose my point of view on others. They accept the
unity of God but they divide the populace into Momins, Kafirs, Christians,
heathens. The point is that Christianity as well as Islam should accept
the declaration adopted by the UN Millenium Peace Summit in August last
year at New York which says that all religions are equal and condemn violence
in the name of religion. This is the meaning of Indianisation of different
religions. Indianisation does not mean that Hindu will go and control their
property or that they must follow the rituals that are followed by Hindus.
The basic thing is that you accept the validity of other faiths and other
religions. When they accept this they come under the wider Hindu fold like
the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
Q. The National Minority's Commission
chairman has report" said that it would soon convene a meeting between
the RSS chief and the SGPC chief Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi to remove the
so called differences arisen after the RSS chief's speech. Would Sudarshanji
attend the meeting?
A. I don't know about Shri Talwandi.
His case did not come up in our discussion. After we had a discussion about
the RSS viewpoint regarding Sikhs the discussion went on to Christianity
and Christians. The Christian representative in the Minority Commission
expressed his apprehensions about the RSS and we on behalf of the RSS explained
our position.' The position was generally on the point that Christianity
should accept the declaration unanimously passed at the Millenium Peace
Summit. Then the Commission asked us whether we are prepared to talk to
a larger Christian group. I said that we don't mind it, as we believe that
through dialogue and discussion many misconceptions and prejudices can
be removed. So we are prepared to talk with the Christian leaders also.
The reference to Muslims did not come up for discussion. But we are prepared
to talk to anybody. We are for the unity of all religions. At the same
time we are not for uniformity of religions.
Q. There are reports that the Commission
had summoned the Sangh leaders?
A. No, this is not correct. I explained
the RSS position in the letter to the Editor published in The Indian Express
on January 15. In fact, as part of mass contact programme undertaken by
Delhi Prant we met the Vice-Chairman of the NCM Shri Tarlochan Singh at
his residence. During the discussion the matter of Sikh religion and the
RSS came up and he was satisfied with our stand on Sikhism. Then he asked
us whether we are prepared to present this point of view before the Commission,
we agreed. Finally, the date of 16th January was fixed. This date has nothing
to do with the meeting of Sikh leaders with the Prime Minister. It is also
incorrect to say that we had gone there to give an explanation. It was
their desire and our willingness to meet that resulted in the 16th January
meeting.
Q. There is also a controversy over
the statement of certain Sangh leaders saying that they would perform yajna
in Gurudwars and will recite the Guru Granth Saheb in temples. Is it true?
A. There is no such RSS programme.
If the Sikhs do not like that yajna to be performed in the Gurudwaras,
why should we as Hindu impose this on them. The controversy was raised
because one Shri Sudarshan Chauhan is reported to have made some remarks
on the issue. The word "Chauhan" was dropped and the whole thing was attributed
to the Sarsanghchalak Shri K.S. Sudarshan. It was clearly an attempt by
vested interests to put the Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal in a tight
spot.