Author: Prof. Rakesh
Sinha
Publication: www.india.com
Date: November 25, 2000
RSS CHIEF K. S.
Sudarshan's suggestions to Christians and Muslims to Indianise themselves
has been mischievously interpreted as a "pernicious campaign" against minorities
and an attempt to "metamorphose India" into theocratic state. Such
criticism is predictable from the Islamists, Missionaries and communist
sources but even the 'secularists' have also been harping upon it.
Editorial comments in
English press are no different in its content, language and phrases against
the RSS and Sudarshan with those of the People's Democracy (CPI-M), India
Currents (Christians) and Radiance (Muslim India). It is this ideological
predisposition of predominantly secularist media which has been providing
strength to the minorityism on the one hand and obstructing debate and
dialogue on issues and questions addressed by the RSS on the other hand.
There is a large section
of Hindus in this country who form their opinion about the RSS on the basis
of the predominantly secularist print media yet they share the ideological
moorings of the RSS in their drawing room and private discussion.
It is the biggest strength of a movement.
Secularism simply means
equality of religious faiths, philosophies and harmonious ties among the
existing religions.
It negates discrimination
on the ground of religion, caste, race, language and sects. It is
therefore not merely a constitutional provision but a way of life.
That's why even injury inflicted by partition could not deter Hindus from
celebrating secularism.
They rejected the concept
of nationality on the basis of religion or language. No demand from
any significant corner was raised for exchange of population during the
days of partition. Is it not a matter of pride that no organisation
including the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS) demanded India to be declared Hindu
State when the constituent Assembly was deliberating the nature of the
Indian state?
What is secularism Indian
minorities For religious leadership of Indian minorities, secularism is
a compromise with the given Indian situation when they do not have enough
numerical strength to change the nature of the Indian state according to
their own whims and wishes. While Hindus pronounce that all religions
are equal and temples, mosques or Churches have common aim of individual's
salvation, the Christians and Muslims do not respond in the same terms.
How can secularism survive
when their religious hypothesis do not allow them to chant Gandhi's mantra
"Ishwar, Allah sab Tere Nam". RSS's ideology of cultural nationalism
is an honest endeavor to end the predicament. It subscribes patriotism
as the highest religion which has also been propounded by Maharshi Aurovindo,
B.G. Tilak, B. S. Pal, Bankim et al. The Matribhoomi
(motherland) is also Punyabhoomi (holy land). Christianity and Islam
have their history of not more than few hundred years, the history of India
and its culture spans thousand of years. So how can one ignore them?
No one can force you to worship Ram and Vedas but how can any Indian irrespective
of his religion disown them as great Indian hero and literature respectively?
RSS has deliberately
and consciously avoided theological discourses. Besides the second
RSS chief Golwalkar praised Christ and Prophet and took the wrath of Hindu
elites of Mahasabha in its early days and now of the 'Voice of India' of
Sitaram Goyal, Koenaad Elst and others. RSS plausibly presumes that
the change in their cultural outlook and reinforcement of nationalism over
religions would lead to a transformation in their religious outlook and
relinquishment of some of their religious dogmas.
Indian secularists have
no answer why Pakistan was formed despite the best efforts of the Congress
and Gandhi to placate Muslims? They dourly draw intellectual defense of
the RSS plausibly entailed them to manipulate facts and events to deride
the RSS. They are the fathers of minorityism which breeds viruses
of separatism, communalism and above all religious nationality.
Slandering the Sangh
Indian secularists have been polemically slandering the Sangh in terms
of Khaki shorts and salutation of orchid flag, instead of opting for protracted
debate and dialogues on issues raised by the RSS and its ideological forerunners,
like Tilak, Aurovindo, Swami Vivekananda, Bankim and others. It was
the British invention in the aftermath of the RSS aggressive posture against
the British colonialism during the Civil disobedience Movement led by Gandhi
in 1930-32.
RSS founder Dr.
K B. Hedgewar had shown complete integration with the Congress programmes.
Thus the colonial forces predictably retaliated by issuing a circular in
December 1932 which prohibited the government employees from participating
in the RSS activities and year later it was extended to the employees of
local bodies. A member V. D. Kolte put up one rupee cut
motion in the CP Legislative Council against the government order which
led four hours long debate spanning two consecutive days exclusively on
ideology, organisation and programmes of the Sangh.
The Indian nationalists
cutting across their political, religious and caste affiliations defended
the RSS. It was praised. Out of fourteen members of non-treasury
bench who participated in the debate all supported the cut motion which
was not only passed but the government also did not force for division
of votes.
A Muslim member M.
S. Rahman refuted the charge that RSS was communal, a veteran Tilakite
B. Khaparde made a joke of the government's intention to equate it
with the Nazi or fascist movment to gain sympathy for its repressive measures
adopted against it, "It is alleged that Dr. Hedgewar acted like Hitler
and he preached principle which Hitler would have done or he identified
himself with principles which were objectionable. A specific enquiry
was made by me about the alleged lecture in which Dr. Hedgewar is
supposed to have made that statement. I am told that there was no
lecture in which Dr. Hedgewar had made that statement and I assure
the House of it because Hedgewar himself told me so.
Now I am told that for
the first time Dr. Hedgewar organised this volunteer corps and therefore
he is dangerous like Hitler. Now suppose we put this in a logical
formula: we know the forms of syllogisms Barabara Celarent Derei Ferioque
ceasari kemistis Festino Boroco and so on. Suppose we put in a formula
you will find the argument fallacious. This is called fallacy or
undistributed middle in the logic. I have not forgotten my logic
yet. Suppose one man says to another your father had a long moustaches.
Therefore... well...nothing. This is fallacy of undistributed
middle. (laugh). Dr. Hedgewar has a volunteer corps.
Hitler has a volunteer corps. Therefore Dr. Hedgewar is Hitler!
This indeed is a bad logic. Dr. Hedgewar has a volunteer corps,
the Khilafatists have volunteer corps. Why should not Khilafatists
be called "Hedgewars and Hitlers?... that is giving a dog bad name
and hanging him."
Will Indian secularists
take any lesson from 1934 debate or would remain ideological progenies
of Macualys? Their discourse on the Sangh conflated prejudices with colonial
and Muslim League's theories. They targeted Golwalkar and now are
doing the same with Sudarshan. However the same they could not do
with Hedgewar since they came to know about him only after RSS celebrated
his birth centenary in 1989. And his authentic biography by N.
H. Palkar is not written in their father language, English, but in
Hindi and Marathi.
