|
Considerable controversy has been generated, once again, around M.S.Golwalkar's book, We or Our Nationhood defined (Bharat Publications, 1939, Re. 1). The controversy centers on the embarrassment of the Saffron Brigade which finds its real mission of establishing a Hindu Rashtra being exposed in all its fascistic glory by this book. Thus, puncturing its efforts to mislead the Indian people by posing as adherents of democracy becomes important. Various advocates of the Saffron Brigade, in various tones, assert that it was not Golwalkar who actually wrote this book; that it was not republished after 1942, and so on. Interestingly, however, not one of them makes any substantiative point by retracting any position that Golwalkar has taken. For the benefit of those who say that this book was not written by Golwalkar but was merely a translation of the Martha work Rashtra Meemansa by Babarao G.D. Savarkar, brother of V.D. Savarkar ( as claimed by a senior official of the RSS-run Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Research Center, New Delhi, in Jansatta. January 7, 1993) here is a quote from the preface written by Golwalkar on March '), 1939 to the first edition of the book: " In compiling this work, I have received help from numerous quarters, too many to mention. I thank them all heartily; but I cannot help separately naming one and expressing my gratefulness to him. Deshbhakta G.D. Savarkar. His work Rashtra Meemansa in Marathi has been one of my chief sources of inspiration and help. An English translation of this is due to be shortly out and 1 take this opportunity of directing the reader to that book for a more exhaustive study of the subject. The manuscript of this book was ready as early as the first week of November1938, but its appearance earlier, however desirable, was not possible due to many difficulties." (Golwalkar, 1939, p.4). The authorship thus being beyond dispute, we can say quite certainly that the book was neither barred from re-publication nor withdrawn after 1942 (on the basis of such a claim by the same RSS, official in lansatta, the editor of Navbharat Times went to the unethical extent of appending a comment to one of my articles that the RSS claims that it has withdrawn this book ! ). We have in our possession the fourth edition of the book published in 1947 (Golwalkar, 1947). Certain advocates of fascistic Hindu Rashtra themselves, however, concede this and admit the fact that the book was re-published in several editions after 1942 (Modak, 1993).The fourth edition in certain places modifies the offensive language used in the first (for example, 'idiots' is replaced by 'misguided', etc.) but the content remains the same. Such modification, however, was considered so marginal that the author does not mention it in his preface; neither is it discernible unless closely scrutinized. An important omission from the latter edition was the foreword to the book by one 'Lok Nayak' M.S.Aney. The reasons are not far to see. Aney says: "I also desire to add that the strong and impassioned language used by the author towards those who do not subscribe to his theory of nationalism is also not in keeping with the dignity with which the scientific study of a complex problem like the Nationalism deserves to be pursued. It pains me to make these observations in this foreword" Such views could not have been allowed to be propagated at a time when the
RSS was reaping most of the benefit of the growing communal tensions and strife
preceding Partition. The inflammatory propaganda value of the book could not be
undermined. The disinformation 1 that the advocates of the Saffron Brigade are now spreading is to conceal their ideological foundations, as Golwalkar's book continues to be the clearest expression of the real nature of the Saffron Brigade's mission today. The RSS 'Bible' We can do no better than quote a very sympathetic account of the RSS, J.A. Curran's Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics - A Study of the RSS: "The genuine ideology of the Sangh is based upon principles formulated. by its founder, Dr. Hedgewar. These principles have been consolidated and amplified by the present leader in a small book called WE OR OUR NATIONHOOD DEFINED, written in 1939. "WE' can be described as the RSS 'Bible'. It is the basic primer in the indoctrination of Sangh volunteers. Although this book was written twelve years ago, in a national context different from the contemporary one, the principles contained in it are still considered entirely applicable by the Sangh membership" (Currant, 1979, p. 39. Emphasis as in the original).The importance of this book for the RSS must be seen also in relation to Golwalkar's role in its history. Golwalkar assumed the reins as the RSS chief in 1940. Two years prior to that, in 1938, he was appointed RSS general secretary by Hedgewar. Incidentally, the RSS Sarsanghchalak (chief) is always nominated by the outgoing one. He continues in his post till his death. So much for their "democratic" credentials! Golwalkar served in this capacity till 1973. His role, particularly in the first phase, from 1930 to 1954, has been summed up thus: "It (Golwalkar's leadership) remains a historical source today for the RSS and its 'family', called upon to suit specific times and audiences (particularly, during riots). It is also exceptionally helpful for our understanding of precisely what the triumph of Hindutva will mean for our country." (Basu, Datta, Sarkar, Sarkar and Sen, 1993, p. 25) Golwalkar's abiding influence has been in providing the Saffron Brigade with an ideological formation, not merely in terms of ideas and principles but also in terms of establishing an organizational structure to achieve the aim of a fascistic hindu Rashtra. This is demonstrated sharply in the period following the withdrawal of the ban imposed on the RSS after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. (The ban was in effect from February 4, 1948 to July 12, 1949.) The RSS, eager to negotiate the withdrawal. of the ban, adopted a course of deceitful compromises. Curran notes: " Golwalkar's announcement soon after legality had been restored, that he had given no agreement or assurances to the Government was an ineffectual attempt to maintain face'. The provisions for elections within the organization and the promise to denounce communalism and to maintain a tolerant attitude towards other communities were quite contrary to past Sangh practice and obviously had been accepted because of Government insistence. However, these provisions have not been observed; 'm practice, the Sangh membership has consistently ignored them." (Curran, 1979, pp. 31-32. Emphasis as in the original).Forced by the Government, the RSS adopted a constitution (which till date is not available for public scrutiny). Article 3 states: 'The aims and objects of the Sangh are to weld together the diverse groups within the Hindu Samaj and to revitalize and rejuvenate the same on the basis of its Dharma and Sanskriti, that it may achieve an all-sided development of the Bharatavarsha' (quoted by Curran, 1979, p. 35). But Curran himself adds: "The Constitution gives no hint of a militant and intolerant advocacy of a hindu state. There is a basic difference between the formal profession of aims embodied in the constitution and actual plans of the Sangh. The Sangh abjures secrecy of ends and means, but the, incompatibility of the tolerant Hindu philosophy of the constitution and the fanatically pro-Hindu and anti-non-Hindu aims instilled in the membership is clear. The proclaimed philosophy is a pale and often deceptive reflection of the real objectives of the Sangh... Too open an expression. of Sangh ideals would undoubtedly result in repression of RSS activities. The Sangh leaders are too shrewd to risk an open struggle with the Government while the odds heavily favour the latter' (Curran, 1979, pp. 35-36. Emphasis as in the original). It is in line with this that Golwalkar in September 1949 publicly voiced in Lucknow the RSS criticism of the Indian Constitution which he termed "UnBharat". There is a similarity indeed here with the present leaders of the VHP who describe it as "UnHindu".
Apart from such tactical maneuvers, Golwalkar
undertook certain organisational initiatives. Following the agreement with the
Government on the withdrawal of the ban, Golwalkar went on to establish the now
infamous Sangh Parivar. The strategy was clear. The RSS would in the public eye
confine itself to "cultural activity" while its affiliates would
branch out into the various sections spreading the message of "Hindu
Rashtra". These seemingly independent tentacles were welded together by the
RSS. This organizational network is today there for all to see. Golwalkar's
important initiative, however, comes in the attempt to organize the Hindu
religious leaders in mid-1964 "to discuss ways in which various Hindu sects
and tendencies could sink their many dif-ferences, work together and establish
contacts with Hindus residing abroad. Thus was laid the foundations of 'the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and an RSS pracharak, Shivram Shankar Apte, became its
first general secretary. The subsequent career of the VHP, today the most "
formidable of the RSS affiliates, demands a separate study" (Basu,
Datta, Sarkar,Sarkar, Sen, p. 50). Another organizational measure taken by him
was to utilise this organizational structure of the "family" to create
apolitical front which would be always under the leadership and control of the
RSS. In 1951, he sent cadres to help Shyama Prasad Mukherjee to start the
Bharatiya Jan Sangh, whose later incarnate is today's BJP. Among those who were
sent were Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Atal Behari Vajpayee, L.K.Advani and S.S.
Bhandari (This fact is mentioned in Basu, Datta, Sarkar, Sarkar and Sen, 1993,
p. 48.) It is precisely for this reason that when Advani was arrested after the
December 6, 1992 events, it was S.S.Bhandari who was BJP's chief spokesman.
Thus, Golwalkar's role in evolving the present ideological foundations for the
Saffron Brigade cannot be underplayed. The entire organizational structure was
to establish a political goal, and this was unambiguously articulated in the
book We or our Nationhood de fined. Hence the abiding importance of this book
for the Saffron Brigade. A proper understanding of the contents of this book and
the intentions
of the Saffron Brigade is necessary for all: patriots who do not wish to see
India slide into the morass of darkness and medieval theocracy. Golwalkar begins
his entire exercise by seeking to understand the word "Swaraj'. He begins
by questioning what is "Swa", meaning "We". In the prologue
to the book he says:
The basic purpose of the book was to establish
that India was always a Hindu nation and continues to be one. By India here
Golwalkar means the "lands from sea to sea". In fact, the map on the
cover of the book gives the outline of his geographic limitations of India which
expands from Afghanistan to Burma and includes Sri Lanka. Golwalkar attempts to
achieve this purpose through an ingenious distortion of both history and
science. First, the entire diversity of culture, traditions, language and
customs of the peoples who inhabited India over centuries is sought to be
straitjacketed into a monolithic 'Hinduism'. Secondly, an external enemy is
created (that is, `external' to Hindus), the hate against whom is used to whip
up `Hindu' consolidation. Golwalkar here relied heavily on the experience of
Hitlerite fascism. Georgi Dimitrov, the indomitable anti-fascist who led the
struggle of the international working class, had said:
sian technique (Goebbels was Hitler's Propaganda Minister) of telling
big enough lies, frequently enough to make them appear as the truth. Its
necessary to note, at this stage, that the external enemy was not identified by
the RSS as the British, against whom the Indian people were then in struggle.
The hate against the Muslim community was sought to be spread much deeper than
against the British by the RSS precisely because the Indian people could not be
united for their 'Hindu Rashtra' against the British, since their anti-British
feel- ings found expression the growing strength of the united freedom movement.
It is for this precise reason that the RSS never nailed down the British as its
enemy. For that matter, it virtually boycotted and at times opposed the freedom
struggle. Even sympathetic accounts of the RSS (The Brotherhood in Saffron by
Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle, 1987, amongst others) detail the
virtual absence of the RSS in the freedom movement and the consequent
concessions it gained from the British. Even Nanaji Deshmukh raises the
question: "Why did the RSS not take part in the liberation strug- gle
as an organization?" (Deshmukh, 1979, p. 29). In fact, the Bombay
Home Department, during the 1942 Quit India movement, observed:
ancient Indian history including the possibility of the name Hindusthan
originating from people outside India who described this land as the land of the
Indus river. Having asserted this, he proceeds to prove' that Hindus did not
come here from anywhere else. This is absolutely central to Golwalkar's
political project since, if this cannot be proved, then logi- cally the Hindus
would be as much of a 'foreign race' as anybody else who came to this land. A
remarkably perfidious exercise is employed to prove this point. All through this
book Golwalkar uses the term "Hindu" and "Aryan race"
synonymously. He thus sets out to show that the Aryans did not migrate to India
from anywhere but originated here. All histori- cal evidence to the contrary is
dismissed as the "shady testimony of Western scholars" (Golwalkar
1939, p. 6). The RSS guru, however, had to contend with Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar
Tilak's theory of the Arctic origin of the Vedas. However, Golwalkar, unable to
reject the thesis of a popular leader, who was also a Hindu, comes up with the
incredible assertion that the Arctic zone was originally that part of the world
which is today called Bihar and Orissa,
In order to achieve an internal consistency for such an incredible
theory, Golwalkar had to resort to a gross distortion of history. Presenting the
"glory of Hindu civilisation" till the time of the Mahabharata he says
that later,
|
|