HVK Archives: Hedgewar's role in freedom struggle
Hedgewar's role in freedom struggle - Indian Express
Rakesh Sinha
()
24 June 1996
Title : HEDGEWAR'S ROLE IN FREEDOM STRUGGLE
Author : Rakesh Sinha
Date : June 24, 1996
The propaganda against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh
(RSS) crossed all limits of not only political moralism
but also academic discipline, as the Marxist
academicians and intellectuals, failing to counter
the growing influence of the Sangh Parivar, use Goebble's
Big Lie tactics to prove that the RSS remained
aloof from the freedom struggle. A prominent CPM
leader Sita Ram Yechury in his article 'What is Hindu
Rashtra?' (Frontline March 12, 1992) says - "It (RSS)
virtually boycotted and at times opposed the freedom
struggle". Four Marxist historians including
Sumit Sarkar in their tract 'Khaki Short and Saffron
Flag', while accepting the anti-imperialist character of
Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, claimed that
the RSS remained aloof from the Civil Disobedience
movement, (P. 22). Similar claims were also made by K.L.
Malhotra, a CPI ideologue, in his pamphlet 'Defeat the
RSS Fascist Designs', (third edition, 1990, P.22-23) when
he says 'the RSS never participated in the freedom
struggle'. However a Marxist bites another Marxist. The
veteran Communist leader E.M.S. Namboodiripad (in his one
of the most critical booklet `BJP-RSS: in the service of
the Right Reaction') reveals:
"One of those who were highly impressed and inspired by
the Savarkar thesis was Dr.Hedgewar, the founder of the
RSS. A nationalist who participated in the Gandhi led
movement, he continued to be a Congressman for a decade
more and participated in the 1930 Salt Satyagrah". (p.8).
The Nehruites and Communists have manipulated the truth,
distorted facts and misinterpreted incidents for their
gains in the past too but what is conspicuous is the
level the brain is being exercised to malign the face of
the RSS by those who betrayed the most crucial struggle
(Quit India Movement) for India's independence in 1942.
At no stage of the freedom struggle either the RSS as an
organisation or any individual member of it cooperated or
integrated with the colonial regime and administration.
Even Bipin Chandra,a Marxist historian conceded,
however in a distorted manner, this truth when
he says Hedgewar never integrated with the
colonial regime. (Communalism in Modern India. P. 332).
Both before and after the formation of the RSS, Hedgewar
missed no opportunity to strengthen the anti-colonial
struggle. To him, "there is no politics for a dependent
nation other than the politics of freedom struggle. It
is a sine qua non for it". Mahatma Gandhi's call for
civil Disobedience Movement was responded by Hedgewar
to
such an extent that he transferred the responsibility of
the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS to Dr. Paranjape, and along
with prominent leaders of the infant organisation,
including Appaji Joshi, jumped into the movement. He was
arrested in Yeotmal while breaking the "Forest Law" and
was sentenced to nine months prison. Can anyone imagine
what would have been the reaction of the followers whose
leader jumped into the movement and was imprisoned ? In
fact Hedgewar did not want to create another political
centre by using the banner and platform of the RSS.
They were already divisions in the Congress. Besides the
Communists, Hindu Mahasabha, Muslim League etc. had
differences with the Congress not only on ideological
plank but also in tactics, strategy and programmes too.
It was on ominous sign for the freedom struggle. The
need of the day was to accept the strategy and programmes
of the Indian National Congress instead of beating drums
separately under different banners what Hedgewar
actually did.
Tilakite
Hedgewar's political career begins from 1905 and ends
with his death in 1940. In the first phase (1905 - 1918)
of his political life, he was 'an unalloyed Tilakite.
Maharashtra witnessed two simultaneous lines in the
public life one, propagated by
Agarkar, emphasised the necessity of social radicalism as
precondition of political change. But, Tilak
emphasised on political activities as the first
priority. Hedgewar endorsed Tilak's approach.
Pandurao's Khankhaje, leader of Swadesh
Bandhav, a revolutionary organisation, wrote in
Kesari, "Hedgewar and the other young men were in the
forefront of Swadeshi propaganda and delivering
speeches". After joining National Medical College in
Calcutta in 1910 with the sole aim to
participate in revolutionary activities, he became
active member of "Anushilan Samiti" with his code name
"Koken". He was closely associated with revolutionaries
like Nalini Kishor Guha (who provides authentic account
of Hedgewar's revolutionary activities in Calcutta during
his stay from 1910 - 1916). After his return from
Calcutta to Nagpur, he used his contacts to
organise revolutionaries with a plan of "armed revolt"
which, according to P.L. Joshi (in his article
"Mobilisation in Vidharba by Tilak in political
thought and leadership of Tilak" edited by N.R.
Inamdar P.370) was dropped on the advice of
Tilak. Hedgewar's revolutionary group was the biggest
one and consisted of 150 hard core revolutionaries. G.M.
Huddar says Hedgewar's revolutionary group resembled a
secret "conspiratorial group" of young men. (G.M. Huddar
in -RSS and Netaji in the Illustrated Weekly of India,
Oct. 7,1 1979). His plan of armed revolt was not an
isolated case of adventurism but it was coincided by his
manifesto for Indians Independence which was to be
declared from many countries. He postponed his plan on
the advise of Dr B. S. Moonje.
A Gandhian
The second phase of his political career begins with his
active participation in the Amritsar Congress in 1919 and
soon he was elected the secretary of the Central
Provinces Congress Committee. His differences with Tilak
and Moonje came on the surface on the question of World
War I and Non Co-operation Movement respectively. He
refused to toe Tilak's line of "passive co-operation"
during the war period (1914-1919) and separated himself
from the political forum of Tilakites ie. Rashtriya
Mandal and formed Nagpur National Union to campaign for
complete Independence. Thus he foresaw the Congress
resolution of complete independence in 1930. Moreover,
the most conspicuous political action of Hedgewar was
his voice against both imperialism and
capitalism. He moved a parallel resolution in the
subject committee of Nagpur session of the Congress in
1920 stating - "the goal of the Congress is to establish
a republic in India and free the countries of the world
from exploitation by capitalist countries". His
differences with Moonje who was described as his "mentor"
occurred on two very important issues. Firstly, Hedgewar
opposed Moonjels candidate Vijay Raghavachariar for
Presidentship of the Congress in the Nagpur session of
the Congress (1920) on the ground that he attended
Governor's party. The differences between the two became
more acute on the question of non co-operation movement.
S. Suntharalingam in his work "Indian Nationalism - a
historical analysis" (Vikas Publishing House P.271)
reveals that prominent Tilakites led by Moonje and G.S.
Kharpade opposed non co-operation movement but
Hedgewar
refused to toe sectarian approach and jumped in the
Movement with vigour and virulence and was sentenced to
one year rigourous imprisonment on August 21, 1921 by the
court with the remark that his defence was "more
seditious than his speech".
Another important incident is revealed by Sri Aurobindo's
biography (Published by Publication Division in the
series of Builders of Modern India, by M.P. Pandit 1983
P.270) that Hedgewar the then secretary of C P Provincial
Congress went to Pondicherry to draw back Aurobindo,
who had been living sequesteral life since
1910 and was considered by Hedgewar as only alternative
to fill the lull created by Tilak's death before the
Nagpur Congress, in to politics. Hedgewar requested him
to accept the Presidentship of the Congress in that hour
of great crisis of leadership. Being a pioneer of
cultural renaissance and a man of non compromising
character, Aurobindo was fittest person to lead the
Congress and freedom struggle. However Aurobindo
moderately declined. (Explanatory letter of Shri.
Aurobindo dated August 30, 1920, Sri Aurobindo himself
Vol.26, P.432-34, Sri Aurobindo birth centenary library).
Hedgewar's vision for declaring complete Independence was
transformed into action with Congress decision to observe
Jan 26, 1930 as Independence Day. His circular to RSS
Shakhas reads, "that the Indian National Congress too has
adopted a goal of Independence naturally gives us immense
joy. It is our duty to co-operate with any orgainsation
working for the cause... Therefore on the evening
of 26.1.1930 all the shakhas of the RSS should hold
rallies of Swayamsevaks at their respective places and
worship national flag i.e. the Bhagwa Dhwaj.
Through speeches it should be explained what is the
meaning Independence and why we should work with the
end
in view. The rallies should conclude by complementing
the Congress for accepting the goal of Independence."
This fact is accepted by even the worst RSS critics like
Sumit Sarkar in his tract "khaki shirt and saffron flag".
Thus the slanderous'allegations against the RSS by Bipin
Chandra that "the relationship of the RSS to colonial
rule was more complex and subtle. Its leadership
also treated the Congress as its enemy number one
which had to be weakened and destroyed by all available
means", (Communalism in Modern India, p 115), shows
how
he consciously tried to mislead the readers through
"omission tactics". The British Government tried to
prove the RSS as the conspiratorial group, but in the
absence of any proof it abysmally failed to do so. It
left no opportunity to suppress the organisation. During
Hedgewar's imprisonment in 1930s under the provocation of
the British, the owner of Mohile Bara, where the RSS
shakhas used to take place dragged the issue into the
court and forced the closure of the shakha there.
Hedgewar's sympathiser Bhosale Lakshman Rao
provided
ground for the RSS activities. But soon after his death
in 1932, Bhosale's children who were in the protection of
the British Raj went to court and forced the RSS to stop
shakha in Tulsibagh's land in 1934 (see Krishna Rao
Mohorir's interview Pratham RSS Shakha, Jagriti
Prakashan). Anti-imperialist struggle was complementedby
RSS activities and despite the ideological commonality
between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha on the
question
of Hindu nationalism, Hedgewar preferred Congress to
Hindu Mahasabha. He and the RSS did not lend
support to the strategy and tactics of the Mahasabha and
instead accepted the hegemony of the Congress as the only
prime platform to lead the freedom struggle.
Back
Top
|
