Prakashan Vibhag:

Rasthreeya Swayamsevak Sangh
Karnatak
 

First Edition: December 1958
Second Edition: April 1959
Third Edition: December 1962
Fourth Edition: June 1968
 

All is well that ends well.  Even memories of the most terrible and fatal accidents, when overcome, become a sweet and precious treasure of joy and happiness.  Is it not an universal experience shared by all?

The imposition of ban on the R. S. S. immediately after the assassination of Gandhiji resulting in the arrest and detention of thousands of its workers along with their leader Sri Guruji under suspicion; clearance of the mist of murder followed by the release of all the workers; release of Sri Guruji after imprisonment for six months; the failure of his all-out efforts because of the obstinate attitude of the Government to persuade them through personal interviews and correspondence either to lift the ban on the R.S.S. or to institute an impartial public inquiry; his subsequent detention under the notorious Bengal Regulation Act of 1818 at Delhi; the courting of arrests find facing of all trials and tribulations by thousands of Swayamsevaks from Himalayas to Kanyakumari to establish the Truth and Justice of their Cause; the failure of the mediation of third party leaders like the venerable Sri T.R.V. Sastry and others due to the highly unjust and obdurate attitude adopted by the Government even after the submission of the draft Constitution of the R.S.S by Sri Guruji; the unequivocal declaration by the Government on 9th July 1949 that the ban on R.S.S. could not be withdrawn because of the fundamental differences between the R.S.S. and the Government; and the taking of the people by surprise by lifting the ban unconditionally only after three days i.e., on 12th July ’49 and all such happenings, have now become sweet memories of the past, though at the time of their occurrence every moment seemed to be most disquieting, extremely perilous and highly explosive.  After all, it is history now.

The grave charges levelled by the Government it the time of the imposition of ban on the R.S.S., such as robbery, dacoity, loot, murder, arson etc., all evaporated and the mere presentation of the Constitution already in vogue (though in unwritten form) was sufficient for the Government to withdraw the ban subsequently.  Let it be noted that there was no mention of this point in the communique issued by the Government when it banned the R.S.S.

But the most surprising part of the whole affair was the unhappy wording of the Government communiqué when it removed the ban, insidiously implying humiliating commitments by Sri Guruji on behalf of the R.S.S.

Justice therefore demands that all facts be placed before the discerning public for their impartial scrutiny.  It is to meet that demand that the historic correspondence between Sri Guruji and the Government during those crucial times is compiled here, with some of the letters in Hindi original rendered into English.  Certain connected material is also furnished as Appendix.  These will, we ire sure, lay bare the true picture of the story.

Facts speak for themselves.  Let the people judge.

One more relevant addition has been made to the already published material in the 2nd revised edition-which itself had included a few new additions to the 1st edition.

The Present Addition is an extract from the statement of Bharat Ratna Dr. Bhagawan Das, who was a renowned thinker and philosopher and the revered father of Sri Sri Prakasha, our Ex-High Commissioner for Pakistan.

We are confident that the present edition, with its fuller contents, will evoke an even wider response from all over the country than the first two editions-the rapid selling out of which his only proved the alert and appreciative eye of our people for Truth and Justice.
 
 

My dear Hon’ble Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
Pranams.

Yesterday at Madras I heard the shocking news that some thoughtless perverted soul his committed the heinous act of putting a sudden and ghastly end to the life of Poojya Mahatmaji by the bullet. This vile act is a blot on our Society in the eyes of the world. Even if it had been at the hands of one from an enemy country, this act would have been unpardonable, for the life of Mahatmaji was dedicated to the good of the entire humanity crossing the borders of particular groups of people. No wonder that every one of our countrymen will be filled with unbearable agony to see that one of our own countrymen has perpetrated his most inconceivable, abominable act. Since the moment I heard the news a void has pervaded my heart.  My heart is laden with anxiety at the terrible prospects of the near future due to the absence of that great unifier. The attack on such a deft helmsmen who held so many diverse natures in a single string bringing them to the right path, is indeed an act treacherous not merely to an individual but to the whole country.  No doubt you, that is the Government authorities of the day, will deal suitably with that traitorous individual.  However severe that dealing be, it is bound to be too mild when compared to the loss sustained.  About that, it is not for me to say anything.  But now is the testing time for all of us.  The responsibility of safely steering the ship of our Nation ahead in the present troubled times will an unruffled sense of judgment, sweetness of speech and single-minded devotion to the Nation’s interest is upon all of us.  On behalf of the Organisation which has been moulded (in these very lines, and intensely sharing the bereavement of the Nation at this crucial hour and invoking the sacred memories of that departed soul, I pray at the Feet of the All-Merciful Almighty that He bless us with the necessary inspiration and wisdom to establish a real everlasting oneness of our people.

Hon’ble Sardar Patel,
Pranams.

Yesterday at Madras I heard the news of the ghastly incident, which has shaken all humanity.  Such a heinous and abominable incident has probably never been witnessed before.  My heart is wrung with extreme agony.  It is difficult to find words to condemn the person who has committed this crime.  Even the idea of such an unprovoked wickedness passes comprehension.  What can be said about the anti who has thus plunged the whole world into indescribable grief?  But let us shoulder the responsibility that has fallen upon us by the untimely passing away of that great unifier, keeping alive the sacred memories of that soul who had tied diverse natures in a single bond and was leading them all on a single path.  And let us with the right feelings, restrained tone and fraternal love conserve our strength and cement the national life with everlasting oneness.  On behalf of the Organisation which is built on this faith and on this basis of oneness I pray at the Feet of the All-Merciful Lord to guide all the children of this Nation on the right path and inspire them for the building up of a pure and powerful national life.

My dear Hon’ble Pt. Nehru,

Prior to my arrest on 1-2-194,8 and ill the extraordinary atmosphere created by the assassination of Pujya Mahatmaji I had written a letter to you.  After my release from prison on 6th August 1948, I am again writing to you with the same love, respect and spirit of honourable co-operation.

It is a fact that I could not then understand why a very large number of my friends and I were arrested and detained and the subsequent steps taken in respect of the work I was representing. I have tried to convince myself by the oft-repeated argument that the times were extraordinary and hasty and unbalanced action was its result. I do not wish to believe that persons occupying the places of highest importance can or should be susceptible to impatience, hastiness or loss of mental balance. But that is the only conclusion forced upon me when after six months’ detention, when sufficient evidence has come to light and I and my work have been absolved from all the astounding allegations laid at our door, I have been served with an order interning me in Nagpur and restricting my activities in such a manner that my release has become only a fresh imprisonment in a more extensive jail.

But whatever the mental condition of the authorities in general and yourself in particular may have then been and may now be, I am grateful to the Almighty that he has riot let my mind turn sour and that I maintain my spirit of love and friendship and oneness. I hope and expect all my co-workers share my sentiments. I would have spread this message of love to ill, preaching to all not to let feelings of hurt or rancour poison their hearts, but the restrictions laid upon me prevent me from doing this necessary duty. I would also have appreciated if instead of being placed under such unwarranted restrictions, I would have been given a chance to clear my position and to convince you of my feelings and readiness to co-operate with the Government in these crucial times.  Even now I hope our rapprochement is not afar.

But times do change, everything regains its balance and I have no doubt the Great God who has been our support all down these centuries will give us the necessary strength, courage and large-heartedness to march on to greatness, each along his path but sill united in common reverence to the Motherland.

Meanwhile, let us cherish now and for ever cordial friendly relations, not allowing the ghastly dream of' the list few months to embitter out. mutual love.

Hon’ble Sardar Patel,

I was released from jail on the 6th of August 1948.  Immediately thereafter, certain restrictions were imposed upon me, because of which I am remaining at Nagpur alone. I have tried to convince myself that it was because of the disturbed mental condition of the, authorities (in the circumstances it the time when I was put behind bars) that such an unexpected step was taken.  Of course it was extremely difficult for me, and so is it even now, to believe that persons occupying places of the highest importance can be susceptible to loss of mental balance and thus act improperly.  And now after the lapse of sufficient time and especially after sufficient evidence to clear up the whole atmosphere has come to light, it is almost impossible for me to think that their mental condition can remain the same.  But the fact of the needless restrictions now imposed upon me, betraying the same lack of mental equilibrium, has shown the impossible to be possible.

All the same, the cherished sentiments of love and friendship to you all which I hive ingrained in my very nature hive riot suffered in the least.  The feelings of' mutual love and co-operation that I had expressed in my letter which I wrote to you on 1st February 1948 before entering the jail, have been the constant texture of my mind.  It is also with the same spirit of goodwill that I am writing this letter.

After having thought from all angles, I feel it would he proper that the friendship and identity that has grown between us both, in person and in our attitude, should be made firm for all time.  For my part, I believe that all of my friends of the now disbanded work, also look to you with the same feelings. I am only sorry that because of restrictions I have been denied the chance to do my ditty of disseminating in ill others those sentiments of friendship.  Also, I am intensely pained that because of restrictions, I am unable to meet you in person and give a clear idea of our work so as to wash off the misconceptions in your mind.  For the same reason I am also unhappy, that in these difficult times of our Nation I am denied the opportunity of discharging my duty of co-operating with the Government. I hope that the day is not fir off when we will he able to come together and foster a healthy atmosphere of co-operation.

This is all for the present. I close this letter with prayers to the Presiding Deity of Bharat that our mutual affection be always on the increase and by the co-operative efforts of all. the future be one of all round joy and glory.

More in person when the occasion arises.

My dear Hon’ble Pandit Jawaharlalji Nehru,

It is over a moth-and-a-half since I wrote to you my last letter, I have not had the happiness of receiving any reply yet. I have been putting off writing again since the Hyderabad question had come to held and action seemed imminent.  Now, however, the most important part of the question has been solved and I feel it time to write to you.

In the clear atmosphere created by the success in the Hyderabad question, I request you kindly to reconsider the question of the ban imposed on the R.S.S. It is now almost eight months and nothing can remain to be investigated into. I am sure you are convinced that the allegations against the R.S.S. have been found to be without foundation in facts. It is, therefore, a case for simple justice, which we have a right to expect from a Government, which we have always considered our own.

During this period, the R.S.S. having been disbanded, the intelligent youth are rapidly falling in the snares of Communism. With the alarming happenings in Burma, Indo-China, Java and other neighbouring States, we can envisage the nature of the menace. The one effective check of the R.S.S. no long exists. The Communists had always considered the R.S.S. as their main obstacle and had tried to denounce and vilify it. In Mahatmaji’s assassination and the ban on the R.S.S. they got their life’s opportunity, which they exploited to denounce the R. S. S. and push forward their work.  News of their progress is alarming. I hope you will consider this problem coolly and help create an atmosphere in which the R. S. S. will be able to work honourably and help the Government fight the menace-on its own cultural lines.  A candid withdrawal of the charges levelled against the R. S. S. and generous lifting of the bait imposed upon it will go a long way in bringing about the desired atmosphere.

For myself, I cannot persuade myself to sit still and helplessly watch the growing danger. When I feel confident of triumphing over it with my cultural organisational work -- freed from the unwarranted stigma of the charges levelled against it and from the legal disability to carry on its work.  It is therefore that I am writing this to you, requesting you to consider the situation and lift the bait on the R.S.S.

Waiting for favour of an early reply,

No. 10(12)-47/P.M.

Dear Shri Golwalkar,

The Prime Minister has received your letter of' the 24th September.  He desires me to inform you that the question of continuing or not continuing the bail on the R.S.S. is a matter for the Home Ministry to deal with. Your letter is, therefore, being forwarded to them.

But he wants me to inform you also that he is riot prepared to accept your statement that the R.S.S. are free from blame or that the charges against them are without foundation.  Government have a great deal of evidence in their possession to show that the R.S.S. were engaged in activities, which were anti-national and prejudicial from the point of view of public good.  Just before the banning of the R.S.S. he is informed that the U. P. Government sent you a note on some of the evidence they have collected about such activities of the R.S.S. in U. P. Other provinces have also such evidence in their possession. Even after the ban we have received naturalization about the undesirable activities of old member of the R.S.S. This information continues to come to us even now.  You will appreciate that in view of this, the Government cannot consider the R.S.S. as a harmless organisation from the public point of view.  It is the Government’s policy to root out communalism from this country and, therefore, not to encourage any movement which aims at the encouragement of the communal outlook.  The approach of the R.S.S. as well as their activities have been definitely communal.  What sometimes their leaders say is not borne out by what is done and there is a great disparity between outward precept and real practice.

Shri M. S. Golwalkar,
Hedgewar Bhavan,
Nagpur, C.P.
 

To

The Hon. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
Prime Minister of India.

Sir,

I am in due receipt of your favour dated the 27th September 1948, and signed on your behalf by Shri A. V. Pai. I received the letter-a reply to my letter to you of the 24th September 1948, on the 4th October 1948, when it was too late for me to reply to you before you left for England. I am, therefore, sending this blow, when you are due to be back in Delhi, in the hope that you will pay kind and considered attention to it.

2. Let me first point out that the Central Government is not fully informed by the Provincial Government of the U. P. in the matter of the note alleged to have been sent to me.  Neither myself nor any of my former co-workers in the U. P. ever received any such note.  What must have happened to it, if at all it was despatched, is a mystery to me!  Long before the R.S.S. was banned, I too had heard much about a “charge sheet” the U. P.  Government was preparing against us.  But months rolled by and it was not forthcoming.  May 1 infer that much of the so-called evidence in the possession of the Governments of the U. P. and other provinces is as authentic this mysterious “note”?

3. In connection with this “evidence”, allow me further to point out that Shri Govind Sahay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier of the U. P., has written a pamphlet entitled ‘Nazi Technique and the R.S.S.’ (in Hindi) and lie is widely circulating it in his position of a ranking Government official.  Even a cursory glance at it is enough to show that from cover to cover it is pure fabrication and libel.  Such is the nature of the “evidence” in possession of the U. P. Government.

4. Again if really the Central and Provincial Government are in possession of incriminating evidence against the R.S.S. or certain of its members, is it not right to expect at least a few successful prosecutions against the alleged wrong-doers?  So far as I know all down these many months the various Governments have taken recourse to the extraordinary special legislations and not proceeded against any person or group of persons under the substantive penal law.  The one case in District Muzaffarnagar -upon which the whole superstructure of the so-called “charge sheet” of the U. P.  Government seems to have rested has been decided only in the last week.  A look at the learned and well-balanced judgement is sufficient to prove the falsity of the “great deal of evidence” against “certain members of the R. S. S.”

5. Also in a Government by law in a free State, which propounds and maintains the fundamental rights of citizens and their right to associate and peacefully propagate their views, we claim it as a right to be placed in possession of the "evidence", so that we may meet the charges.  It is unfair for a civilized Government that ours is, to charge any person or body of persons with crimes of a serious character, without laying sufficient weighty evidence on the table and giving the accused a chance to vindicate his innocence.  In the case of the R.S.S. I am constrained to state that it is most unfair to level charges against us, allow private individuals and parties to carry on a campaign of vilification against us under cover of the Government bail and at the same time gag us by use of Emergency Legislations like tile Public Safety Acts. I fail to see how this course is calculated to do credit to the Government which we want to love and hold in esteem.

6. In the short space of this letter, I have only tried to indicate that the “evidence” on the face of it is unreliable.  It deserves to be sifted and assessed for what it is worth. May I appeal to you, our Prime Minister and First Gentlemen of the State, to apply an impartial, judicious and objective mind to this question and allow me and my friends the chance to disprove the allegations and vindicate our innocence?  May I appeal further that, ill view of the untenability of the charges, the but on the R.S.S. be lifted?  May I also appeal that no new matters be now introduced as it will be a deviation from the established canons of law and justice?

7. I shall be grateful if I am given an early chance to meet you in person and personally explain my position to you.  The date and time when I may be able to have an interview may kindly be communicated to me.

Hoping for favour of an early reply,

Hon. Pandit Jawaharlalji Nehru,
Pranams.

Immediately after the removal of the restrictions laid upon me by the C. P. Government, I came here to Delhi to meet necessary persons.  All these days I have been waiting for your return from abroad so that I may have the honour of a personal interview with you.  Whatever may be the result of the interview, I feel it necessary to try to clear away the many misunderstandings about me and the work I stood for.

When in October 1947, I had the happiness of meeting you, I had said I would come again.  But my ceaseless wanderings made it impossible.  Now I hope the chance his been offered to me and I shall be very greatful if you will kindly communicate to me the date and time when I may have the interview and be given the chance of reiterating my assurance of last October 1947 of unstinting support to the Government in these delicate times.

Expecting early reply,

No. 1396-P.M.

Dear Shri Golwalkar,

I am in receipt of your letters of the 3rd and 8th Nov.

The Home Ministry of the Government of India are concerned with internal matters and thus have to deal with the problem of the R. S. S. I understand that they have given a great deal of attention to it and have consulted Provincial Governments also. I suggest that you should deal with that Ministry and I am forwarding the papers you sent me to them.

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.

I would gladly see you but, apart from my being very fully occupied since my return from Europe, I do not think such an interview will serve any useful purpose.  As the matter is in the hands of the Home Ministry, it is desirable that you should deal with them directly.

Shri M. S. Golwalkar.
20, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
 

Hon. Pandit Jawaharlalji Nehru, Pranams.

I am greatful for the kind and prompt sent to me on the 10the instant. I hope it was after full consideration that it was written. After it’s reaching me I need not have carried on this correspondence since it depicts that your mind is practically closed oil the question.

But I must point out a few things arising out of your favour of the 10th instant.  It appears to me that the Government are making an extravagant claim in starting that they have more knowledge of the R. S. S. than all of us-its members- put together, and have a mass of information come to them in the course of the last year.  Out of this period, for the last nine months and more, the R.S.S. is riot functioning at all and as for the individual members, all the prominent ones were in jail for most of this period and not in a position to do any activity about which adverse information, as suggested, could be given with any trace of truth in it. I hope you will note this palpable discrepancy in your letter.

Next: the information seems to show that these activities have been ‘anti-national’.  This is a grave charge and does not deserve to be made lightly.  It calls for proof weighty and substantial.  Mere feelings and opinions have no value in this behalf.  Reiterating that the Government have information in their possession without allowing those against whom the charges are made to test it, to subject it to searching scrutiny, means nothing.  Let it be appreciated by both of us that “mere assertions do not help much.” So long as the Government continue to make assertions and allegations without discharging their onus of supporting the same with unrebuttable evidence, we can only continue to assert and with justification that the charges are untrue and that injustice is being perpetrated against us.

If a magistrate convicts a person for an offence, however small, without disclosing to him any evidence, merely stating that there is a ‘lot of information’ against him,, the magistrate’s conduct stands self-condemned.  And when such grave charges are made without bringing forward one iota of proofs what shall we say?  Have we retrogressed into the dark ages, when the feelings, opinions and will of some one individual or group were alone just and national and any person or group of persons could be awarded even capital punishment just for the fun of it?  Is not this arbitrary course much more in opposition to the decisions of the Indian Parliament than any act, which we could ever imagine?

So far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing in the objectives of the R.S.S. to which the Indian Parliament can take exception, nothing, which is contrary to the decisions of the Parliament so far published.  As for being “opposed to the provisions of the proposed Constitution”, it would have been better if this had not been written by you-our Prime Minister.  It is queer as to punish a man for attempted murder of an individual due to be born in a year or so.

One more point: We are ill ignorant of which you have been pleased to call ‘real objectives and activities, as distinguished from the professed ones’. To us our professed objectives are real and our real objectives have always been openly given expression to. To wear a mask hiding the reality within, to express what is not meant and mean what is never expressed, to maintain and cherish complete discord between thought, word and deed are facets in the art of dissimulation--the quality of the wily diplomat and politician-may be a necessary quality.  By the grace of God, we are humble servants of our people in the cultural field, aloof from politics, building character, building unity.  There is no room in our work for the art which maintains discrepancies between the ‘professed’ and the ‘real’.

Excuse me for having been a little frank.  But the continued injustice, the constant harping upon “the mass of information” which dare not face the sun of scrutiny and the fact that each of your letters has some original and previously unthought of allegations have made me express a fraction of my feelings it the gross injustice done to my work and at the Government’s peculiar attitude which, in the long run, is bound to set such bad precedents that, I am afraid, this unfortunate country will be involved in interminable party feuds and mutual distrust.  The history of the last thousand years is full of these feuds and their resultant defeat and degeneration.  Now when for the first time the country is emerging from the heap of ruins of the past ten centuries, I hope we rise wiser and saner and not allow that unfortunate portion of our history to repeat itself under difficult denominations.

That is all. I would have felt very happy and grateful to hive been given the chance of an interview with you.  But it seems you would rather not have it.  Be it so.  We appear to be at the parting of ways.  The Mother can be worshipped in various ways, all sooner or later converging, meeting at Her Sacred Feet. I had hoped and tried that our ways converge and meet sooner but that does not seem to be Her Will. I obey Her Command and with all love and respect for you, prepare to step upon the course, which the Great Mother may indicate.

A considered reply will be a great favour.

Hon. Pandit Jawaharlalji Nehru, 
Pranams.

The accompanying letter was almost ready yesterday, when in the evening I received a letter from the Home Ministry communicating to me that the ban would not be lifted in pursuance of your letter to me of the 10th instant.  It is surprising to note that you say that the Home Ministry is solely responsible for deciding this question whereas the Home Ministry came to a decision not independently but on the strength of your letter.

Let me also point out that the Home Ministry wishes unjustly to compel me to leave Delhi and go to Nagpur.  You know 1 have come here to demand justice from the Central Government, as I have a right to.  Arbitrary decisions can have no value.  Let all charges be proved conclusively or withdrawn unconditionally and the ban he lifted forthwith.

We profess to be a civilised State.  Such arbitrary acts may fit in with the autocratic rule of barbaric ages or to a certain extent to a foreign bureaucratic domination.  But it does not, in my opinion, become a modern civilised democratic Government, which professes to uphold and maintain the rights of the people with impartiality and justice.

I have, therefore, decided to stay over in the Capital till the wrong done to us is redressed.

With regards,

Hon’ble Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel,
Sadar Pranams,

It is over a month and a half since I wrote my last letter to you. I have not had the pleasure of receiving any reply from you as yet.  For some time past I had been thinking of writing to you again.  In the meanwhile, however, the Hyderabad problem was becoming graver everyday and the situation too so developed that intervention by the Government had become inevitable. That step was also taken. Fortunately the most important part of the question has been solved successfully in a very short time. In spite of the fact that various groups and parties were trying to act in their own ways with regard to the Hyderabad problem, I and my co-workers had always maintained that the Government alone should tackle the issue and set it right: and that the people would whole-heartedly support such a move. My cherished desire has been fulfilled, although in the present disbanded condition of our work I was unable to offer any help.  All the same, my heart longed to see the success of our Government’s action.  Happily, victory has ensured and I wired to your good self and to the Prime Minister my heartfelt congratulations.  I had put off writing this second letter to you till now, only because I thought that you would be engrossed in the Hyderabad problem.  As that question is now solved for the most part, I am penning this letter.

It is now almost eight months that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been banned. Doubtless, you are fully aware as to how far there is truth in the allegations made against the Sangh. I am quite certain that you have not the least doubt regarding the innocence of Sangh.  There have been country-wide searches and investigations.  Now, no more proof is needed to show that all the charges levelled against the Sangh were baseless even though the Government at that time might have thought otherwise.  It now behoves the Government to withdraw all these charges and thus express their love of justice.

This, however, is only from the point of view of justice.  From the point of the nation’s situation I request you to consider it from two angles.  The Hyderabad problem, because of which there was apprehension on the part of some that communalism would grow, is being successfully solved.  Our Government’s hand has proved strong enough and all of us are happy and free from anxiety as such a bold policy on the part of the Government will effectively checkmate the evil of communalism.  The present success has wrought a change in the atmosphere and there can be no objection now to declare the charges against the Sangh to be baseless and allow it to function as before.

The other way of looking at the situation is this.  Reports received from the South and the United Provinces reveal that the youths, especially the student section his, since the banning Sangh, begun to lean more towards communism.  Their propaganda is on the increase.  It is not as if I have to give this indication of peril to you.  But you will appreciate how much I have to control myself to sit idle and be a mere helpless spectator of the growth of foreign ‘isms’, when I feel confident that if Sangh is allowed to come out without the least stigma and function normally, the youth call he saved to a very large extent. I for one feel that if you with Government power and we with organised cultural force combine, we can soon eliminate this menace. I am intensely worried at the waves of victory of that foreign ‘ism’, which are sweeping over our neighbouring countries. It is that anxiety that makes me appeal to you with earnest urgency to create the necessary atmosphere for the functioning of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as before.

Indeed you bestow deep thought oil each and every question of importance. This too is one such, fit for your generous and comprehensive power of vision.

One more request to you. I am under restrictions! It is not impossible that it may be due to Central Government directives.  But I feel it my duty to tour the whole of Bharatavarsha in order to protect our nation, our national life and our Government and save our young men from becoming extra-territorial in their loyalty.  On that account even if I have to suffer, I have got to go out touring in a short time.

Kindly consider all these things.  This is not the time to keep on discussing about the justice or injustice of the Government’s actions against the Sangh.  Nor do I possess so much of intellectual leisure.  As such, removing all these things from before the eyes and in answer to the call of the times alone, please take a decision. I and all my co-workers have been striving from the very start to co-operate with you to bring, the situation under control and make our Motherland invincible.

Expecting your reply at the earliest,

Brother Sri Golwalkar,

Received your letter dated 11th August.  Jawaharlal has also sent me your letter of the same date.

You are very well aware of my views about the R.S.S. I have expressed those thoughts at Jaipur in December last and at Lucknow in January.  The people had welcomed those views. I had hoped that your people also would accept them.  But they appear to have had no effect on R.S.S. persons, nor was there any change in their programmes.  There can be no doubt that the S. S. did service to the Hindu Society.  In the areas where there was the need for help and organisation, the young men of the R.S.S. protected women and children and strove match for their sake.  No person of understanding could have a word of objection regarding that.  But tile objectionable part arose when they, burning with revenge, began attacking Mussalmans.  Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing.

Apart front this, their opposition to the Congress, that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people.  All their speeches were full of communal poison.  It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection.  As a final result of that poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.  Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government or of the people no more remained for the R.S.S. In fact opposition grew.  Opposition turned more severe, when the R.S.S. men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death.  Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the R.S.S.

Since then, over six  month have elapsed.  We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the R.S.S. persons would come to the right path.  But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot. I once again ask you to give your thought to my Jaipur and Lucknow speeches and accept the path I had indicated for the R.S.S. I am quite certain that therein lies the good of the R.S.S. and of the country and moving on that path we can join hands in achieving the welfare of our country.  Of course, you are aware that we are passing through delicate times.  It is the duty of every one from the highest to the lowliest in the country to contribute his mite, in whatever way possible, to the service of the country.  In this delicate hour there is no place for party conflicts and old quarrels.  I am thoroughly convinced that the R. S. S. men can carry on their patriotic endeavour only by joining the Congress and not by keeping separate or by opposing. I am glad that you have been released. I hope that you will arrive at proper decision after due consideration of what I have said above.  With regard to the restrictions imposed upon you I am in correspondence with the C. P. Government.  I shall let you know after receiving their reply.

Brother Sri Golwalkar,

Received your letter of the 24th. I had sent a reply to your first letter on 11th September.  I do not know why it did not reach you. I am sending a copy of the same.  As the first letter did not reach you, I have thought it advisable to send this letter to you through Shuklaji.

2. From the reply, which I had given to your letter, you will appreciate the whole situation.  It is in consultation with all the Provinces that action has been taken against the Sangh.  Only recently, the suggestions of the Provinces were again taken.  But their opinion is still the same, that the notification imposing ban on the Sangh cannot be withdrawn.  You are aware that our own men are there in all the Provincial Ministries. When it is the unanimous opinion of all of them that the notification be kept in force, then there must be some defect in the organisation itself.  No one has any animosity against the organisation.  If even then their opinion is like this, there must surely be some real basis for it.

3. After viewing all the things my only suggestion to you is that the Sangh should be brought to adopt fresh lines of technique and policy.  That new technique and new policy can be only according to the rules of the Congress.  If there is enthusiasm among the youth or the students it cannot be that it should be expressed in aggression and violence.  There are other beneficial paths on which youth and students can be taken, to which I personally and the Government will offer heartiest sympathies.

4. With regard to your coming here, I have written to Shuklaji.  After receiving his reply, I shall write to you again.

Hon’ble Sardarji,
Sadar Pranams.

After your departure to Bombay from here, I have received some instructions sent at your own instance.  Their substance is as follows.  The purpose of my coming to Delhi is over.  The opinion of the Provinces was called, for and they have sent their opinion against the removal of the ban.  Now I need riot remain here but should return to Nagpur, because the restrictions imposed upon me were removed only to enable me to proceed to Delhi to meet and request you in person to lift the ban.  Now that work is over.  Since the opinion of all the Provinces is unfavourable, there is now no need for further talks.  As such, you are not even going to meet me now.  It is with the knowledge that you have decided not to meet me again that I am forwarding this small letter for your kind perusal.

At the very outset, I wish to make one point very clear. I am not aware that the restrictions upon me were removed only for any limited purpose.  As early as in August alone I had made it quite clear to the Hon’ble Pandit Dwaraka Prasadji Misra that I did not want the restrictions to be removed only for the limited purpose or on the condition of going to Delhi.  After considering the pros and cons, if the Government removes the restrictions unconditionally, well and good.  Of course, I had said that in my efforts to see that the Sangh was legalised I would first go to Delhi.  But I was not prepared to accept any removal of restrictions on that condition.  Therefore, it was only after reading the intimation of unconditional removal of restrictions that I started for this place.

Secondly, so many persons have been asking many a time so many types of questions. I have tried to give a consolidated answer to them all in the two statements published on 2-11-48. I have herewith enclosed copies of both statements.  My request is that you go through them carefully.

Thirdly, you had asked for opinions from the various Provinces regarding the removal of ban on the Sangh and you had also told me of it.  Then alone, I had pointed out that this is the concern of the Central Government, especially of your self alone.  So far as all of us are aware, when the bait was imposed it was the Central Government, which took initiative in promulgating the order.  On the next day the other Provinces, and a few days later the States, only enforced that order.  To my co-workers who had approached the ministers of various Provinces, the ministers declared that they were not concerned. Of course, some Provinces did express their opposition. But all finally said that it was a central question and they would act according to the Central Government’s directions. I had also said the same thing that in fact this question comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Government alone and that the other Provinces will only follow the Central Government’s directions.

And now for the Provincial Governments to point their finger to the Central Government and the Central Government in their turn to point to the Provincial Governments, is something, which will only result in evading the issue and can never lead to any satisfactory solution.  How far is such a state of affairs desirable, is for you to consider.

The innocence, usefulness and the urgent need of the Sangh is bound to be, as is already being done, proved.  Malpropaganda cannot suppress the truth for long.

Once again, I want to submit that the charges levelled against the Sangh are, one and all, baseless, fictitious and false.  It appears that due to the virulence of their propaganda, even the mind of such a balanced person as yourself has been disturbed. I know the nature of our work.  It has been a matter of daily experience to me how individuals, especially youths, inspired with the noblest of sentiments, cultural integrity, spirit of selfless sacrifice and service to the people are moulded here and how the purest of love and sublime character blossom forth in them.  That mean allegations should be laid at the door of this sacred organisation has caused me intense pain and surprise.  After so much of wild propaganda against them and even after suffering dastardly attacks from so many thoughtless people, the exemplary restraint that the Sangh Swayamsevaks have displayed even up to this day and have, by their wise and dignified conduct, avoided internecine quarrel and ill will-even this single instance should suffice to prove the pure intentions of the Sangh.

Keeping in mind the delicate situation in the country and with a view to remove dissensions for the sake of a glorious future, I had instructed all my Swayamsevak brothers to be peaceful and I strove for a peaceful settlement. I tried my utmost to see that between the Congress, which is capable of delivering goods in the political field and is at present the ruling party, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the cultural field, which has achieved success in creating a matchless spirit of patriotism, brotherhood and selflessness among the people, there be no bad blood, there be only everlasting mutual love, one supplementing and complementing the other, both meeting in a sacred confluence. I extended my hand of cooperation.  With utmost regrets I have to say that you have chosen to ignore my best intentions.  My heart’s desire to see the converging of both the streams has remained unfulfilled.  Maybe that the All Merciful Lord is indicating to me a different path and maybe the seed of future glory of this divine Bharatavarsha is imbedded therein.

At this juncture, when our ways are parting, I have a longing to have your darshan once.  Although you have thought of not seeing me, I pray that you give me an opportunity so that I can take leave of you according to our traditional custom.  Even though there has arisen some difference of opinion regarding the issue of legalising the Sangh, I have personally the highest esteem for you.  It is because of it that at this point of taking, however unwillingly, a separate course, I am desirous of meeting you.

One small thing.  On the evening of 2-11-48, the Delhi District Magistrate had sent me an order of restriction. From what is written in the first paragraph, I surmise that it was done with your consultation and as per your instructions alone. I had not expected such a treatment. I had to reject that order with a feeling of utmost regret, as I thought it to be unprovoked and unjust.

That is all.  May the Lord who is the Bestower of the power of discrimination, shower good on all.  Expecting the favour of an early reply.

Dear Mr. Golwalkar,

Sardar Patel has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 5th November, 1948, and the enclosures thereto and to say that he is very sorry that due to his preoccupations he is unable to reply to you himself.

2. You have doubtless received the Prime Minister’s letter dated the 10th November, 1948, which deals fully with the main points, which you have made in your letter to Sardar Patel.  Sardar Patel regrets he is unable to depart from the position which lie took in his last interview with you and the verbal communication, which was made to you through Mr. Bedekar of the Home Ministry.  The Provincial Governments have expressed themselves unable to lift the ban imposed on your organisation, and for the reasons communicated to you in the Prime Minister’s letter of the 10th November, the Government of India are unable to advise the Provincial Governments to adopt a contrary course.  Since the purpose for which the restrictions imposed on you by the Central Provinces Government were removed has been served, it is no longer necessary for you to stay in Delhi.

3. I am, therefore, to request you to make immediate arrangements to return to Nagpur. I should like to know, as soon as possible, but not later than tomorrow evening, what arrangements you are making in this behalf, so that we may inform the C. P. Government accordingly.

Hon. Sardarji,
Pranams,

Received with thanks a letter signed by Shri Iyengar on your behalf yesterday evening. I have noted your decision not to lift the ban on the R. S. S. relying on the letter sent to me by the Hon. Prime Minister on the 10th November. I was surprised to find that whereas in his letter the Hon. Prime Minister has informed me that it is the Home Ministry alone which has to decide, you have taken your stand on the Hon. Prime Minister’s letter to me.

Allow me to point out that I came to Delhi to get justice done to my work.  In its place I have an arbitrary decision unbecoming of a civilized Government, which professes to uphold the fundamental rights of the people.  Since the case has been entrusted solely to the Home Ministry there are only two courses left open to them.

(1) To limit their attention to the charges mentioned in the communique of the Government of India dated the 4th February, 1948, declaring the R.S.S. an illegal body and prove those charges by incontrovertible evidence, allowing us the right to subject the evidence adduced through scrutiny.  Mere assertions of information which is not so proved and arbitrary decisions based upon such information which is kept a jealously guarded secret will not help in this matter; or

(2) to withdraw unconditionally all the charges as being baseless and lift the ban. I intend staying on in the Capital till either of these two courses is taken and justice done to my cause.

As for my leaving Delhi and going to Nagpur, I had explained in my letter of the 5th November that it was only after an unconditional withdrawal of all restrictions on my movements and activities by the C. P. Government that I decided to come to Delhi. I was never prepared for a temporary relaxation of the restrictions for the limited purpose of coming here to see you.  The suggestion that it was a temporary relaxation contained in your yesterday’s letter is totally wrong.  Under these circumstances it is improper to try to compel me to leave Delhi and go only to Nagpur.  As I have said I wait for justice being done to me and stay on in Delhi till, as a civilized State, the Government fulfils the demands of justice.

I hope you will give considered attention to what is written above and do what is just and proper and not what is autocratic and arbitrary.

With regards,

The following is the letter written by Shri Guruji while presenting the Draft Constitution of the R.S.S. to the Govt. of India:
 

To
The Hon’ble Home Member, 
to the Govt. of India,
New Delhi.

Through:
The Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs, 
Govt. of C. P. and Berar,
Nagpur.

Sir,

Enclosed is the written Constitution of the R.S.S. The body will hereafter function in accordance with its terms.  They were substantially the terms on which the Sangh work was carried on in the previous years.

I hope the Constitution as now framed will be found unobjectionable and will satisfy a much felt want.  With the hope that the Government of India will find it so, I expect that the Government of India will be good enough to pass early orders lifting the ban on Sangh and enabling it to function is before, subject to the Constitution now framed and submitted and to be duly published as soon as I am enabled to do so.  All consequential orders may also be passed to facilitate the work of the Sangh.

I am painfully aware that the Government of India have viewed my words and attitude in general with suspicion; but time will show that my work of welding together in cultural bonds our loosely knit and largely divided population, by associating them in common pursuits and common discipline, will benefit the country as a whole and that my attitude is one of co-operation and goodwill to all and not one of conflict with any group.

Expecting an early and favourable response,

Seoni Sub-Jail,
11-4-1949.
 

From
H. V. R. IYENGAR, I.C.S.,
Secretary to the Government of India.

To
SRI M. S. GOLWALKAR,
C/o The Chief Secretary
to the Govt. of C. P. and Berar,
Nagpur.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter dated the 11th April enclosing copies of the draft Constitution of the
R.S.S. and requesting that the ban on the organisation be lifted.

2. The Government of India are in consultation with the Provincial Governments oil the draft submitted by you and the request you have made and it will be some time before their replies are received and considered. In the meanwhile, they are disposed to think that it may be of advantage if they communicated to you at this stage the views they have themselves formed.  In presenting these views, they have kept in mind tile consideration, which Sardar Patel mentioned to you ill the course of interviews with him last October.  You will recall his telling you that the gravamen of the charges against the R.S.S. was that it functioned in secrecy, that whatever the professions of its organisers might been, it derived its main inspiration in the minds of the people from the doctrine of communal hatred, that it exalted L communal party above State and that in practice its followers indulged systematically in violence.  The Government of India feel that the Constitution as drafted does riot fully safeguard the organisation against these defects.  In particular they have noticed the points mentioned in the following paragraphs.

3. You have stated in your letter that the R.S.S. has in the past adhered to the principles laid down in the draft Constitution.  One of these is that the Sangh adheres to “peaceful and legitimate means” for the realisation of its ideals.  Unfortunately the history of R. S. S. activities in recent times shows that this profession has in practice been systematically violated by your followers.  Incidents have occurred in all Provinces and many States where the methods adopted by the Sangh were anything but peaceful and legitimate, and where the advancement of the interest of Hindu religion and culture took the form of violence against those who happen to profess some faith other than Hinduism.  The Government feel therefore that positive and explicit declaration in the Constitution for the abjuration of violence would be necessary.

4. A specific declaration, under Article 4, of allegiance to the Constitution of India as established by law and an explicit acceptance in Article 5 of the National Flag (with the Bhagva Dhwaja as organizational flag of the (Sangh would be necessary for satisfying the country that there are no reservations in regard to allegiance to the State.

5. The charge of surreptitious functioning of the organisation cannot, in the Government’s view, be adequately met without a provision in the Constitution of the Sangh stating that all rules and instructions shall be written and published and all its activities shall be open.  A specific provision regarding the publication of annual audited accounts would also he desirable.

6. On the organisational side, the various committees of the R.S.S. at all levels seem to contain a substantial element of persons who are virtually nominated from above.  This is a principle of organisation which is fraught with great danger and the Government of India consider that the democratic elective principle should be unequivocally recognised and acted upon.  In particular, the functions of Sarasanghachalak have not been defined with any degree of precision.  In the interest of democratic working, these functions should be specifically listed, and all vestiges of a dictatorial character should be removed.  You are doubtless aware of the general criticism that in positions of importance the R.S.S. has persons belonging to a particular community from a certain area.  You will have to ensure that this preponderance is removed and that there is generally local autonomy in regard to office-bearers etc.

7. In regard to the pledge, the acceptance of a life obligation in connection with membership of an association in more common with secret societies than with democratic groups functioning in full public view.  To this extent, therefore, the pledge incorporated in the draft Constitution is retrograde.

8. The Constitution should contain a provision to the effect that minors can be enrolled as members, only with written consent of their parents or guardians and their membership should be terminated if at any time such parents and guardians desire it.  The minors should not be required to take any oath or pledge.

9. These criticisms have been communicated to you at this stage because the Government want you to appreciate that their approach to this, as indeed to other political problems, is constructive and helpful rather than merely destructive and hostile.  But it rests entirely with you to decide what action should be taken on this letter.  Government will consider the matter further after receiving your further reply.

Seoni Jail,

17th May, 1949.
 

To
The Hon’ble Home Member, 
Government of India,
NEW DELHI.

Sir,

Received with thanks the letter No. 28/23/48 of 3-5-49 over the signature of Shri H. V. R. Iyengar, I.C.S., Secretary to the Government of India.

I feel it would have been advisable for the Government not to hive referred to the so-called charges against the R.S.S. In this, this letter takes us back to the February ’48 days, an unhappy retrogression.  All the same everything that need be said in answer to the ‘charges’ has been said in detail in the memorandum submitted to the Government by some of my co-workers where it has been shown that there is no basis for the allegations.  If the Government believed that the information on which they had based these charges was reliable, they should have in response to my request in my letters to the Hon’ble Prime Minister (written during Aug., Sep., Oct., 1948) and yourself, come forward to prove them before any impartial tribunal.  This would have given us a chance to know what stuff the information was made of.  But the Government have chosen to keep ill this “information” a jealously guarded secret and have not risked in open scrutiny of the same.  It is over 16 months that the charges were levelled and over 6 months I asked for proof.  But no such proof has been forthcoming and now it is too late.  The one legitimate inference is, therefore, that the so-called ‘information’ is incapable of being proved and as such deserves to be rejected.  Under the circumstances it is unbecoming of a Government claiming to be civilised, to continue to reiterate the so-called charges even it this late stage and does not derive any respect for the Truth, Justice or due process of law on the part of the Government.  This is an uncomfortable deduction and it is to avoid this embarrassment to the Government, that I had in my last letter of 11-4-49 scrupulously avoided any reference to these “charges” etc., and had not even requested the Government to make a statement withdrawing the “charges”, though I believe such a declaration will greatly enhance the prestige of the Government.  This with reference to the paragraphs 2 and 3 of your kind letter.

Regarding para 6 of the letter, I am not aware of any general criticism that the R.S.S. has “in all positions of importance persons belonging to a particular community from a particular area”.  On the contrary I know that communal, sub-communal or provincial considerations do not vitiate the work of the R.S.S. or play any part in any person occupying any position of importance.  To-day the Government have before them a substantial portion of members of the R.S.S. whom they have been pleased to put in jails.  Even a cursory glance will suffice to show that this remark has been made without due consideration.  There being therefore, no preponderance of any particular class of people and local workers having always enjoyed full freedom in conducting the work of the R.S.S., I do not see that any specific provision in this connection is called for.

As regards “appointments from above”, let me with all humility, point out that this does not indicate any want of “democratic element”, since in all provinces and the centre, the bodies laying down the policy guiding and controlling the work are composed of elected members.  Only the day to day routine is in charge of persons “appointed from above”.  This ought to satisfy the Government’s solicitude for the democratic elective principle, seeing that the Government themselves are composed of a small elected body, the Assembly, whereas the great bulk are ill “appointed from above”--right from H. E. the Governor General to the last peon.  And yet no one can say the Government of India is undemocratic.

About the functions of the Sarasanghachalak I have not been able to see what “vestiges of dictatorship” there are in the draft Constitution.  The central elected body is the sole authority and has alone the responsibility of discharging all necessary functions regarding the work.  There seem to he only two rights, which the Sarasanghachalak possesses: (1) of nominating his successor and (2) of calling and addressing meetings of members in any locality etc.  For the rest he is a general guide. But it rests solely with the Central Body to decide how far, if at all, to follow that guidance.  These are the only functions of the Sarasanghachalak and these have been stated state clearly in the draft Constitution.

Regarding the minors mentioned in paragraph 8 of the letter, I am sorry to note that Government have not carefully considered what is stated about the minors in the draft.  The minors are not members, hence the question of Pratigna (not oath) does not arise.  They are encouraged to take part in out-door activities of the R.S.S. and imbibe abiding qualities of sound character.  That is all.  Regarding the necessity of the written permission of their parents these are minor details, which can be worked out later.

Regarding paragraph 5, let me first state that the R.S.S. has always functioned in the open. The charge of ‘surreptitious functioning’ is untrue and born out of misunderstandings.  At the same time I have said in my letter of 11-4-49 that the Constitution shall be duly published.  When it comes to that stage, I shall ask my co-workers to consider the advisability of incorporating such provision in the Constitution.

The contents of para 4 of the letter are wholly out of place in the matter under consideration. I request the Government to recognise the difference between a Constitution and an oath of allegiance.  If this difference is appreciated tile suggestion contained in the paragraph becomes uncalled for.  Even so Art. 4 and 5 of the Constitution are sufficiently unambiguous.  In this connection let me draw the attention of the Government to my statements of 2nd Nov. ’48 where these points have been unequivocally answered. I think that should suffice.

One more point remains, regarding the Pledge (Para 7 of the letter).  The R.S.S. bases its work upon Hindu Culture.  In Hindu Culture a Pledge is always a life obligation and not a temporary contract.  If the life-pledge is the quality of' secret societies only and retrograde, then in the opinion of Government the whole Hindu Society must be akin to a secret society and the Hindu Culture, retrograde in its nature.  Do the Government think it will be right or creditable to accept this conclusion seeing that you the Hon. Home Member (and through you the Government) have declared in one of your recent speeches that you knew and respected Hindu Culture?

I have tried to explain the criticisms.  Indeed a full answer is not possible without consulting my co-workers for after all they have as much voice in the matter as I have.  I pray the Government to consider my answers calmly and without prejudice. I feel it serves no useful purpose to take recourse to dilatory methods.  All the same the Government may take their own time.

I have always believed and with all the emphasis at my command maintain that these ‘charges’ are wholly untrue and that violence, secrecy, communal hatred etc., had never any place in the R.S.S. in the past and can have no place in its work in the future.  As for the somewhat new and original charge of “exalting a communal party over State”, I can only say that the expression is meaningless and in the present set-up such a condition can never arise, whatever party be in question.

As I close this letter, let me point out that there is no Constitution, which cannot be found fault with in one respect or the other.  All Constitutions are capable of improvement in course of time. I think, therefore, that it is not proper to criticise a Constitution immediately it is framed and expect it to be perfect like the word of God.  The Government, I was told, wanted that the Constitution of R.S.S. be reduced to writing and that has been done.  If we expect it to be perfect before allowing it to be worked and go on suggesting improvements and alterations, I think it is likely to remain unfinished and unworked till the end of time.  The only proper course to my mind is to allow it to work, and as circumstances demand, to alter and improve.  This could be an approach really constructive and helpful.

From
H. V. R. Iyengar, I.C.S.,
Secretary to the Government of India.

To
Shri M. S. Golwalkar,
C/o The Govt. of C. P. & Berar.

Sir,

Please refer to your letter dated the 17th May addressed to Sardar Patel.

The Government of India regret that you should have used in your reply phrases like ‘meaningless expression’ and charged the Government with indulging in ‘unbecoming behaviour and lack of respect for truth, justice or due process of law’.  Such language constitutes a complete disregard of the ordinary rules of courtesy and propriety, more particularly in reply to the Government where letters are written, as my previous letters were written, with a full sense of responsibility that attaches to Government communications.

2. Coming to the substance of your reply, the Government of India regret to note that your attitude in regard to the activities of organisation of the R.S.S. seems to have undergone no change.  Not only do you see nothing wrong in the ideologies and the activities of the R.S.S. in the past but you suggest that the organisation would be guided by the same ideology and pursue the same methods in future.  In regard to your argument that an impartial tribunal should judge the charges made against the R.S.S., the Government of India would like you to understand that they are and must be the final judge of whether the activities of an organisation or an individual arc prejudicial to or subversive of the State and they cannot share that judgement with any tribunal.  Indeed any suggestion that a matter like this he referred to an impartial tribunal can only come from an unrealistic appreciation of the very elements of Public Administration. I am to repeat that the Government of India have ample evidence in their possession implicating both the R.S.S. and its individual members in systematic acts of violence.  They held their hand for a long time hoping that the organisation would mend its ways and they took action only when their patience was exhausted.

3. The Government had hoped that after some calm thinking you would appreciate the correctness and soundness of the attitude taken by them but they regret to notice that you continue to show an obstinate attachment to those very defects in the organisation and functioning of the R.S.S. which have proved so harmful to the interests of the country.  You have carried this attachment to such an extent that you ignore even the patent fact that in key positions in your organisation in every province, you have persons belonging to a particular community from a particular area.  The Government of India had expected that you would appreciate the constructive approach which they made to the draft Constitution of the R.S.S. but find that you have either misunderstood that approach or are deliberately adhering to the objectionable features of your Constitution in the hope that they will enable you to carry on the activities of the R.S.S. on the same undesirable lines as in the past.

4. The policy of the Government in regard to the R.S.S. is quite clear and unequivocal.  They are and must be the custodian of public interests and it is their duty to safeguard those interests against the unhealthy and undesirable encroachments.  Unless and until they are satisfied that the R.S.S. will not be in a position to repeat the happenings and disastrous consequences which flowed from their activities in the past, they cannot relax their present attitude towards the organisation.

To
The Hon’ble Home Member, 
Government of India,
NEW DELHI.

Sir,

1. I am very grateful for the letter dated 24th May, 1949, over the signature of Shri H. V. R. Iyengar, I.C.S,, Secretary to Government of India.

2. I am thankful for being told that “any suggestion that a matter like this he referred to impartial tribunal can only come from an unrealistic appreciation of the very elements of Public Administration”. I admit my ignorance in this behalf, which I have the honour of sharing with no less a personality than Mahatma Gandhi.  If this is meant to be an abiding principle of administration-well, it is dangerous.

3. I have tried to understand the spirit of the letter, as evidenced by the last paragraph.  This letter as well as the last one of 3rd May, 1949, gives me great satisfaction in that they prove that my reading of the mind of the personalities vested with the power of the Government has not been incorrect.

4. Regarding the first paragraph of the present letter I am sorry that my language has offended the Government. I am a plain man brought up in an organisation wherein the sense of high or low does not predominate and wherein, therefore, there is no occasion to study and use a style of language suitable for addressing rulers and masters.  Hence I could use only plain and straight-forward expressions for expressing what I believed to be right and true.  All the same I beg to be excused for having unwillingly offended the Government by a direct expression of the truth.

5. I also beg to be excused for not being able to persuade myself to confess to charges, which I know to be untrue, even to humour the Government, in spite of my regard for the persons now in charge of the Government.

6. Since my direct and truthful words seem to be unpalatable to the Government, I think it best to desist from writing any further for the present.

7. And yet I request the Government to reconsider the matter in the light of the last paragraph of my last letter of 17th May, 1949.

8. For the rest, I am happy as I am.

Thanking you again for the prompt reply,

No. 335/49/Ps.

From
H. V. R. IYENGAR, I.C.S.,
Secretary to the Government of India.

To
SRI M. S. GOLWALKAR,
C/o Government of C. P. & Berar.

Sir,

I am writing with reference to the correspondence resting with your letter of the 1st June, 1949, addressed to the Honourable Home Member.  Your letter indicates that you are so much imbued with your own idea of truth and justice and the righteousness of your conduct that you are not in a position to receive with good grace any unpleasant truths or to appreciate any helpful and reasonable approach to the difficulties created by yourself.  In these circumstances the Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by continuing the correspondence.  So far as the Government are concerned, the position remains as stated in my two previous letters.

Hereunder, we produce the letter addressed by Sri Guruji to the person of Pandit Moulichandra Sharma once again restating in unequivocal terms the stand of the R.S.S. On the strength of this letter, it is said, the ban was withdrawn.  Let it not he forgotten that Sri Guruji had stopped all correspondence with the Government.

My Dear Pandit Moulichandraji,

I am thankful to you for having come to see me and put me in possession of the trends of thought current about the R.S.S. in certain sections of society in the country. I am surprised to learn that in spite of my public statements made before my arrest and the correspondence through friends who have met me in jail and direct with the Home Ministry, there are still doubts about the position I take on the points that have been raised concerning the R.S.S. at various times by the spokesmen of the Government.  You think that in view of the critical times through which the country is passing, it is necessary that all those who wish for a strong, well knit and stable society in this country should sink their differences and close their ranks, and therefore you have taken the trouble of coming to see me to get from me a clear statement of the ideological, constitutional and practical stand of the Sangh, so that doubts that still persist may be removed and conditions favourable for the consolidation of the forces of stability be created. I deeply appreciate your goodwill and the spirit behind your move and I have not the slightest hitch in restating the position of the R.S.S. on the points that you have raised.

1. Loyalty to the Constitution of India and the State Flag:-

This question should not arise in an independent country.  Every national of India claims loyalty to his country and that is his proud birth-right.  Every member of the Sangh pledges to dedicate his all to the service of the motherland.  Like every other citizen of India every Swayamsevak of the Sangh is loyal to the country, its Constitution and all the emblems of India’s national independence and glory.  The Flag is such an emblem and it is, as has been stated before, the proud duty of every Swayamsevak as of every national of India to stand by this flag and keep up its honour.  As you know, this has already been stated in the draft Constitution in Article 5. Although it was not necessary to do so, it was advisably mentioned to emphasize the importance that the Sangh attaches to this point. I am sure nobody will mix Lip the question of our institutional flag, the Bhagva Dhwaja, with the question of the State Flag, adopted by the Constituent Assembly.  As you know, even the Congress has its own flag separate from the State Flag.  In fact according to law, no party, institution or individual can use this State Flag except under rules laid down by the Government.  This being the spirit, I can have no objection to this point made more explicit in the Constitution itself.

2. Policy of Violence and Secrecy:-

Such policy has been alleged by the critics of Sangh. But neither violence nor secrecy has been proved.  The Sangh has not believed in violence except in National War, when every loyal citizen must fight the enemies of the country under the command of its Government.  Except for that, violence has no place in an orderly democratic society and in the ideology or the working of the Sangh.  This is clear from Article 4.

As for secrecy, the draft Constitution of the Sangh is a positive proof that there is nothing secret in the working of the policy of the Sangh.  It is a public body working in the open.  In view of the emergence of certain political parties believing in and resorting to violence and secret methods, I would like that at the end of Article 4, it is inside clear that persons believing in or resorting to violent and secret methods have no place in the Sangh.

3. Election to Sangh Bodies:-

As you would see from the draft Constitution of the Singh, it follows broadly the Constitution of Indian National Congress. The A.B.P.S. is a purely elected body comparable to the A.I.C.C. The Pranteeya Pratinidhi Sabhas are similarly modelled on the Provincial Congress Committees.  The Sarkaryavaha is like the Congress President, elected by the All India Elected Body viz. the Akhila Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha.  Again like the Congress President, he appointed his whole executive, which is called the K.K.M. This is comparable to the All India Congress Working Committee.  Similarly P.K.M. is on par with Provincial Congress Executive.  The A.B.P.S. lays down the policy and programme of the Sangh and the Karyakari Mandals are merely to carry out that policy.  Thus you will appreciate that the Constitution is completely based on the elective principle, Whole-time workers meant to do technical training and such other specialised work are bound to be appointed for their knowledge and skill in that job, but their existence does not affect the predominance and controlling of the elected bodies.

4. The Life-long Pledge:-

The misunderstanding about the Sangh Pledge is probably due to the fact that it is in Hindi and few people have cared to look into it thoroughly.  The Pledge is for loyalty to “Bharata Varsha”, our motherland and for dedication to her service, not loyalty to the Sangh or any institution or person.  Accordingly a Swayamsevak can leave the Sangh without breaking the pledge, if he feels that he can serve the country by doing so.  Article No 6 (i)d of the Constitution provides for it.

5. Admission of Minors to the Sangh:-

The Sangh is, by its Constitution, restricted to working in the cultural field and has nothing to do with politics.  It aims mainly at the formation of national character, healthy bodies and healthy minds.  The most formative period is between 14 and 20 years of age.  All cultural organisations dealing with the youths try to mould them at that age.  So long as there is no law to regulate such activities of cultural organisations, there can be no reason for asking the Singh not to instruct minors under the age of 18.  Let me make it clear that the Sangh has always worked among minors strictly in accordance with law.  If a guardian writes to request the Sangh authorities that he does not want his ward to be given instructions, his name is struck off the rolls.

6. Sarasanghachalak nominates his successor:-

If you read the wording of relevant article, you will see it clearly stated that the present Sarasanghachalak i.e., myself was nominated by my predecessor, Dr. Hedgewar, “in consultation with the then K.K.M.”. In future, the Sarasanghachalak will nominate his successor “with the consent of the then K.K.M.”. You will see that the word “consent” has replaced “consultation” in future.  So this nomination is a formal declaration of the person elected by the K.K.M., which is the Executive working under the control of the Central elected body viz. A.B.P.S. You will also see that the constitutional head of the Sangh is the Sarkaryavaha, who is elected by the elected A.B.P.S. The Sarasanghachalak is only a “Philosopher and Guide” as Article 12 declares.

7. That Sangh is dominated by persons belonging to a particular community from a particular area:-

The Sangh originated in Nagpur and its first workers were trained here. They spread over different provinces and organized shakhas there.  As such, for historical reasons, such workers were mostly Maharashtrians from Nagpur. But as the work spread, a large number of workers from other provinces have come up and sonic of them have been in the top ranks of the Sangh.  More will come up and with the draft Constitution with its elected bodies coming into operation, this residency will find full expression as a majority of the Swayamsevaks are non-Maharashtrians.  Like every other public body, people most popular with the rank and file in their own provinces will be elected to the Pranteeya Pratinidhi Sabhas and then to A.B.P.S. Such criticism is not correct even at present, but to future conditions it will have no Application at all.

8. Auditing of Accounts:-

If you see Article 14 Clause C (iii) you will find that an annual audit of accounts has been provided for as a compulsory measure in the draft Constitution.  On this point the Sangh is really very strict that not a penny of public funds remains unaccounted for.

I  trust, this clarification will set at rest the doubts that may be entertained by certain people and will bring about a true understanding of the real position of the Sangh.

With best wishes and thanks for the trouble that you have taken.

Wire sent by Sri M. S. Golwalkar, to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel and Sri Devdas Gandhi after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

Shocked at the news of cruel fatal attack and tragic loss of greatest personality.  Country’s loss unbounded in these critical times.  God help shoulder responsibilities grown heavier and fulfil the void caused by the loss of incomparable unifier.

Instructions sent to different branches of the R.S.S. by telegram:

Out of respect and sense of sorrow at the tragic demise of Mahatmaji observe mourning till the thirteenth day by suspending normal routine.

Statement of Sri M. S. Golwalkar, Sarasanghachalak of the R. S. S. issued to the press before his arrest.

A deed of exceptional brutality having been perpetrated resulting in the death of the most revered and beloved personality of the times, I feel it my duty to depart from our usual abstinence from making public statements and give vent to the feelings of horror and grief which the news has awakened in my mind.  It is a tragedy of unparalleled magnitude, the more so because the evil genius is his countryman and a Hindu.  Every right-minded countrymen will feel, on top of inexpressible grief at this bereavement, a sense of shame in that this prevented being happens to be his countryman.

Living in these critical times, the country needed a great unifier and pacifier that the greet soul was, and encompassing his death is a deed of unpardonable national disservice.  With outraged feelings, we mourn the loss and look to the future.

In the presence of this appalling tragedy I hope people will learn the lesson and practice the doctrine of love and service.  Believing in this doctrine, I direct all my brother Swayamsevaks to maintain a loving attitude towards all, even if there be any sort of provocation born out of misunderstanding and to remember that even this misplaced frenzy is an expression of unbounded love and reverence in which the whole country held the great Mahatma, the man who made our motherland great in the world.  Our salutations to the revered departed one.
 

Instructions sent to different branches of the R.S.S. by telegram, dated 3rd Feb. 1948, from Nagpur.

Guruji interned; Be calm at all costs.

Text of Government communique dated 4th February 1948, declaring the R.S.S. unlawful.

In their resolution of February 2, 1948, the Government of India declared their determination to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name.  In pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the Chief Commissioner’s.  Similar action is also being taken in the Governor’s Provinces.

As democratic Governments, the Government of India and the Provincial Governments have always been anxious to allow reasonable scope for genuine political, social and economic activities to all parties and organisations including those whose policies and purposes differ from, or even run counter to their own, subject to the consideration that such activities should not transgress certain commonly recognised limits of propriety of law.  The professed aims and objects of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are to promote the physical, intellectual and moral well-being of the Hindus and also to foster feelings of brotherhood, love and service amongst them.  Government themselves are most anxious to improve the general material and intellectual well-being of all sections of the people and have got schemes on hand which are designed to carry out these objects, particularly the provision of physical training and education in military matters to the youth of the country.  Government have, however, noticed with regret that in practice members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have not adhered to their professed ideals.

Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh.  It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunitions.  They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect fire arms, to create disaffection against the Government and suborn the Police and the Military.  These activities have been carried on under a cloak of secrecy, and the Government have considered from time to time how far these activities rendered it incumbent on them to deal with the Sangh in its corporate capacity.  The last occasion when the Government defined this attitude was when the Premiers and the Home Ministers of Provinces met in Delhi in conference towards the end of November.

It was then unanimously agreed that the stage when the Sangh should be dealt with as an association had not yet arrived and that individuals should continue to be dealt with sternly as hitherto.  The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims.  The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.

In these circumstances it is the bounden duty of the Government to take effective measures to curb this re-appearance of violence in a virulent form and as a first step to this end, they have decided to declare the Sangh as an unlawful association.  Government have no doubt that in taking this measure they have the support of all law-abiding citizens, of all those who have the welfare of the country at heart.
 

The following is the text of the Statement issued by Sri Guruji disbanding the Organisation, as reported in ‘Bharat Jyoti’ - Bombay, Sunday 8th Feb. 1948.

Mr. M. S. Golwalkar (Guruji) Sarasanghachalak of the R.S.S., has issued a statement saying “It has always been the policy of the R.S.S. to be law-abiding and carry on its activities within the bounds of law.  Therefore since the Government has declared the R.S.S. an unlawful body it is thought advisable to disband the R.S.S., till the ban is there, at the same time denying all the charges levelled against the organisation.” Mr. Golwalkar is in custody and the statement was issued through his counsel Mr. D. G. Deshapande and was addressed to Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla, Premier of C. P. and Berar.
 

The report, as appearing in ‘Organiser’ Aug. 12, 1948, of the restrictions imposed upon Sri Guruji, immediately after his release from Nagpur Central Jail on 6th August 1948.

Restrictions:

(1) To live within the Municipal limits of Nagpur, not to leave the same without the previous consent of the District Magistrate of the place in writing.

(2) Not to address any public meeting.

(3) Not to publish directly or indirectly any matter in any newspaper, journal or magazine without the previous approval of the District Magistrate.

(4) Not to engage himself or associate with any person engaged in any activity tending directly or indirectly to excite dissection against or to embarrass the Provincial or Central Government or to promote a feeling of hatred or enmity between different classes and subjects of the Indian Dominion or to disturb public peace.

After the breakdown of his talks with the Central Government, Sri Guruji issued the following two statements to the Press, on 2nd Nov., 1948.
 

I and my co-workers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, now under ban and disbanded, have been doing our bit to serve the Hindu People for the last 22 years since the Vijayadashami of 1925.  The aims and objects of the Sangh have been pure and holy. I restate them in brief.

1. This land of Bharatavarsha is our holy land, our Motherland and the one object of our adoration and loyalty.

2. In this holy land we the Hindu People have been living for countless centuries for which reason it is also known as Hindusthan.

3. Living in this holy land we built a great Dharma (which word has no counterpart in the English language) combining highest material prosperity with purest spiritual beatitude. In this confluence we tried to build great empires, consolidating the people into a well ordered Society, striving to make every individual happy and free from want and to offer him opportunities to achieve the highest flights of philosophy and spiritual peace-each according to his own genius, inclination and persuasion and in this endeavour we set up lofty ideals of i