Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
RSS wants unity, not uniformity of religions

RSS wants unity, not uniformity of religions

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.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements