Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 24, 2000
Introduction: The educated
Indian middle class forms its opinion about the RSS on the basis of the
predominantly secularist print media. But again it is people from
the same class who privately empathise with the RSS ideology when they
discuss patriotism in their drawingtoom.
RSS Sarsanghchalak K.S.
Sudarshan's exhortation to Indian minorities to Indianise themselves has
been interpreted by the Left parties and the so-called secularists as a
"pernicious campaign" against them and an attempt to "metamorphose India"
into a Hindu state. A section of the English-language press, predominantly
Marxist-Nehruvian, has also been harping on it. Editorial comments,
be it People's Democracy (CPI-M), Indian Currents (a Christian missionary
journal) and Radiance (Islamic) have been no different in content when
it comes to the RSS viewpoint. It is such ideological predisposition
against the RSS which lends strength to minorityism and obstructs debate
on issues addressed by the RSS. The Educated Indian middle class
forms its opinion about the RSS on the basis of the predominantly secularist
print media. But again it is people from the same class who privately
empathise with the RSS ideology when they discuss patriotism in their drawing
rooms.
It is a piquant situation
but it is the biggest strength of this movement. Secularism implies
equality of beliefs, philosophies of different religions and harmonious
ties among a religiously varied people. More than a constitutional
provision, it is a gift from a particular cultural ethos of a people.
And Hindu culture has had secular undercurrents since time immemorial.
That is why repeated aggressions in the medieval period and Partition could
not deter Hindus from practicing secularism. The concept of nationality
based on religion or language, whenever advanced, has been rejected.
It is noteworthy that no demand from any significant corner was raised
for making India Pakistan's counterpart, a Hindu state. When the
Constituent Assembly was deliberating on the nature of the Indian state
even the Hindu Mahasabha endorsed equal right to Muslims who opted for
India as their motherland. No Hindutva movement has ever advocated
any policy of minorityism or ever opposed minorities' rights or freedom.
VD Savarkar, BS Moonje, Mahasabha stalwarts, never spoke against any discrimination
on religious lines; nor did they blame any community for India's degeneration.
Neither has a Hindutva movement interpreted economic, social and political
rights in religious communitarian terms.
No Hindu organisation
counts the heads of Hindus employed in State services, police in those
States where Hindus form minority, like J&K and the North-East.
But the same cannot be said of Islamic and Christian journals; they convince
their readers of the backwardness of their respective communities in the
"Hindu dominated" India. Issues of Muslim India can be cited as an
example of such efforts. Secularism should not be treated as a compromise
in a given situation among the religious communities with varied numerical
strength. It is a qualitative measure based on common goal for a
corporate national life. Shri Sudarshan expects the Indian minorities
(religious) leaders to respond to the Bharatiya cultural credo of "Sarvadharma
Sambhav." RSS's ideology of cultural nationalism is an honest endeavour
to this end; and its interests and ideals go beyond the causes espoused
by any religious mission or their ends such as conversion. This ideology
subscribes to patriotism as the highest religion which is also what Aurobindo,
BG Tilak, BC Pal and Bankim Chandra propounded.
If devotion to one country
of birth can ever be faulted then the idea or the assertion that matribhoomi
(motherland) is also punyabhoomi (holy land) can be called Fascist in its
implication. While Christianity and Islam have their history in India
of not more than few hundred years, the history of India and its culture
spans thousands of years. The question here is how is someone born
and brought up in this land to respond to the cultural and philosophical
developments and currents which made Indian life what it is and which predate
by several centuries the advent of semitic religions in India. No
one can force anyone to worship Ram and Krishna or to respect the Vedas,
but how can any Indian, whatever his religion, ignore them as great Indian
heroes and literature? The RSS has stayed clear of any theological discourses.
The second RSS chief Golwalkar praised Christ and the Prophet and incurred
the wrath of Hindu elite of the Mahasabha in its early days and now of
the Voice of India of Sitaram Goyal, Koenaard Elst and others. RSS
looks to a change in cultural outlook and reinforcement of nationalism
over religions. Indian secularists are wont to equate the Muslim
League of pre-Independence India with the Hindu Mahasabha and Jinnah with
Golwalkar.
The fact of the matter
is that the League and Jinnah were responsible for minorityism, which breeds
viruses of separatism, communalism and religious nationality. Indian
secularists have been slandering the Sangh over their khaki shorts and
salutation to the Bhagwa flag. They never initiate debate on issues
raised by the RSS and its ideological forerunners-Tilak, Aurobindo, Vivekananda,
and others. This slander harks back to a British reaction to RSS's
aggressive posture against colonialism during the Civil Disobedience Movement.
(The author teaches Political Science at Delhi University)
