Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 8, 2002
In a democracy, no organisation
can claim that its ideology is the only means for the nation's salvation.
Ideological pluralism is essentially a sign of vibrant national community.
However, in the Indian democracy, the practice of ideological apartheid
has proved to be the biggest hurdle before evolving a consensus on the
vital issues of nationalism and secularism. Secularists introduced Semitic
politics which eventually created totalitarian mindsets. The RSS has been
discussed, but only to be slandered.
The British constantly accused the
Sangh of possessing a "communal and fascist" character. One reason was
the refusal of the RSS - acknowledged as the most organised and well-trained
volunteer organisation in British India - to cooperate in the British war
effort during 1940-45. Even before that, the government tried to outlaw
the RSS in 1933, using the pretext of its "communal" character. The reason
behind the colonial action was the RSS's participation in the Civil Disobedience
Movement. But the colonial government faced the most humiliating defeat
in the Legislative Council of the Central Provinces and Berar during the
budget session in 1934, when one rupee cut motion against the ban on the
RSS was passed after two days' discussion. The Government was eventually
forced to withdraw the circular. The biggest embarrassment for the Government
was the RSS's defence by a Muslim member, MS Rahman, who challenged the
Government to cite even one instance of its involvement in any communal
strife.
The Muslims had not perceived any
psychological or physical threat despite vigorous military training in
the shakhas. Muslim League's literature remained silent on the Sangh till
mid-1940s. After 21 years of RSS's existence, the League suddenly realised
a threat from it in 1946. The Dawn, the mouthpiece of the League, wrote
a leader on the RSS on May 13, 1946. Calling the Sangh a "secret underground
organisation", the edit said: "It is undoubtedly that the Sangh has been
long start and is now already a well organised and trained body; nevertheless,
now that details about its object, its modus operandi, and its sinister
design are known, it should not be difficult for Muslims to devise counter
measure." In fact, the League was barking at the RSS to bite the Congress.
In a subsequent editorial, 'Ban the Sangh', on May 31, 1946, The Dawn wrote:
"It is the duty of every provincial government to declare the RSS an unlawful
organisation... we regret to find that Mr Gandhi, Nehru and other top ranking
leaders to whom we had made an appeal to condemn the ideology and activities
of the Sangh continue to maintain strange silence." Besides, premeditated
attacks were made on RSS shakhas in the Muslim dominated areas to disturb
communal amity. For instance, Home Minister of Hyderabad Khan Bahadur Mirgulam
Alikhan categorically said on May 26, 1945, in a Government communique,
that "40 armed Muslims assaulted the RSS men playing in their Shakhas"
in Hyderabad city (Mahratta, May 30, 1945).
After Independence, the RSS received
the severest criticism from Nehru who, unlike Gandhi, had not read RSS
literature or discussed its ideology or attended any of its programme.
Nehru, like many others, perceived its ideology, social base, and ambition
in the spectrum of the Mahasabha. He virtually inaugurated anti-RSS propaganda.
After the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru found himself vindicated.
The first theoretical study on the
RSS was made by an American scholar JA Curran in 1951. The Sampradayikta
Virodhi Committee (SVC) published a booklet American Interest in the RSS
in 1973. It wrote, "The interest of Mr JA Curran Jr, then head of the CIA
operation in Asia and Africa, is particularly remarkable because he undertook
his 'Operation Understanding RSS' when the organisation had been banned
and when it was not supposed to be a force to be reckoned within Indian
politics... the path of the RSS and America coincided on the morrow of
Independence."
The slanderous propaganda that the
Sangh had CIA links coincided with rising tide against Mrs Indira Gandhi
and decline of the Congress in Indian politics. Curran's work was extensively
cited by Indian secularists to damn the Sangh as a "militant, revivalist,
Nazi movement".
The image deficit of the Sangh militates
two-way discourse in Indian politics. Unappetising intellectual inputs
by the Sangh parivar's literature fail to counter its highly articulate
critics. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee is right in disapproving of irresponsible
speeches by some people. Why did the HMS become an archival subject and
the RSS continues to grow, can be answered by comparing the difference
between Hedgewarian and Savarkarian approaches. The difference was not
tactical but temperamental. RSS's founder KB Hedgewar, unlike the Hindu
Mahasabha, avoided producing a blue print for his glorification mission
of the nation. The only paradigm he set before the organisation was Patriotic
Moralism.
Hedgewar bequeathed ideological
contours of the Hindutva movement which certainly disappointed the Mahasabha
leadership. He made a distinction between Islamic aggressors and Indian
Muslims. Common ancestors and cultural outlook, and willful sharing of
the cultural heritage and history, Hedgewar believed, bridged the grey
areas among the two religions.
(The author teaches Political Science
at Delhi University and is a political analyst).
