Saturday, January 29, 2000.
DIWAN AHMED ahmeddiwan@home.com wrote in message
news:389297A9.E1517BE3@home.com...
When country is ruled by the will of minority interests, when interests if majority are sacrificed for the benefit of tiny minority, it can not be democracy but only a dictatorship. Minority can rule majority only by militant and oppresive means. Will of the people have to be thwarted for a minority to
supercede majority. You seem to be so brainwashed with your missionary ambitions that you are willing to equate dictatorship with democracy and struggle against minoritism/dictatorship with fascism. Perhaps you are trying to rationalize and justify your own fascist responses against majority by accusing the
majoritism to be synonym of Fascism. By accusing the other side to be fascist, one can justify one's own fascism as legitimate self-defence. And that has become the modus oprendi of Pseudos for dealing with India's majority and organizations looking after their welfare.
Do you think people still buy the kind of crap Pseudos have been putting out against RSS over last 50 years of their rein? Nothing but lies, lies and lies. You can keep repeating them ad infinitism, but lies do not become truth simply by repeatation. None of the lies and allegations stick to RSS. Do you wonder why? RSS is going from strength to strength. Do you wonder why? It is Congress and its Pseudo brigade that have been going down and down. Do you ever wonder why? Perhaps you don't. You have your own missionary agenda and you think you can float on Anti-RSS slime.
JoeB wrote:
Majoritism is the bedrock of democracy"? This is usually called facism you brainwashed confused idiot. This line of arguments might work for the petty-bourgeois but just does not wash here. Please peddle your putrid facist stuff elsewhere.
Excerpt from BBC
What is the RSS?
Throughout its more than 70-year existence, the RSS has been associated with communal riots and virulent anticommunism. The organization was founded in 1925, ostensibly to defend the Hindus of Nagpur, one of many Indian cities that were convulsed by communal violence after the collapse of the first mass mobilization against British rule (the 1920-22 Non-Cooperation Movement). Two years later, RSS members drilled in the use of the lathi (a traditional Indian weapon made of wood) routed a procession of Muslims, to the delight of sections of the local Hindu elite that claimed Muslims held a disproportionate share of government jobs.
To this day, the life of the estimated 40,000 RSS cells or shakhas revolves around a daily martial arts drill, in which youth, from their early teens on, are schooled in fighting and taught complete obedience to their RSS superiors. The RSS refuses to divulge membership figures, but several million people are known to regularly participate in the shakhas. The
RSS also has built an extensive network of affiliated organizations--for students, workers, women, and religious devotees--that are both broader in membership and take up socioeconomicgrievances specific to their clientele.
From its origins to today, the social composition of the RSS has been overwhelmingly urban petty-bourgeois: students, small traders, civil servants, and office clerks and managers. In conjunction with the BJP, it founded a trade union wing in the 1950s, but it remained small until the 1980s. Today the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh claims a membership of more
than 3 million, largely among white-collar workers. The urban petty-bourgeois character of the RSS is underscored by its relative weakness in the countryside. Although two-third's of India's population is rural, there is no significant RSS presence.
The RSS and Hindu Rashtra
The RSS first emerged as a mass organization during the horrific
communal violence that surrounded the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent. N.V. Godse, the man who assassinated Gandhi in January of 1948, was a former RSS cadre and ardent Hindu nationalist. In the months leading up to the assassination, the RSS had subjected Gandhi to a tirade of abuse for interceding to protect Muslims.
Following Gandhi's death the RSS was banned for close to two years. The organization has always vigorously denied any connection to Gandhi's assassination, but it is hard pressed to suppress its sympathy for Godse. In the words of current RSS supremo Rajendra Singh, Godse's "intention was good but he used the wrong method."
The RSS's ideology of Hindu rashtra--that India is the nation of the Hindus and the Hindus alone comprise the nation--was developed in opposition to the liberal-democratic program elaborated by the Congress Party leadership. Congress maintained that all Indians, irrespective of ethnicity, religion or caste, should enjoy equal citizenship rights. At times the RSS and its associated organizations, particularly the BJP, try to camouflage their communalism by pointing to the contrasting meanings of Hindu. (A word of non-Indian origin, it originally denoted all those living east of the Indus River.) But the principal ideologues of Hindu rashtra, the RSS-leader M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar (head of a like-minded communal political party, the Hindu Mahasabha) have made clear in their writings and speeches that Muslims and Christians are alien groups who in a Hindu nation will enjoy citizenship rights only at the sufferance of the majority.
Both Golwalkar and Savarkar draw direct inspiration from Nazi Germany. "Germany has ... shown," writes Golwalkar, "how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole--a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by." While Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee and Home Minister L.K. Advani of the BJP refrain from praising Hitler--unlike
their ally, Shiv Sena leader Bal Thakeray--they do insist that India's 120 million Muslims must "nationalize" themselves.
The RSS-BJP have a thin, anti-capitalist veneer. They denounce
capitalist or "Western" society for its individualism and corrosion of community, but they uphold private property and profit. The RSS has always described itself as a cultural nationalist, and not political, organization. This has been a stratagem to avoid direct conflict with more powerful political
opponents. But the denigration of politics, the claim that there is a "national" interest that stands above both traditional bourgeois politics and the class struggle, is central to the RSS's mystical-fascist ideology. Moreover, in totalitarian fashion, the RSS considers itself to be the Hindu nation in embryo.
Golwalkar derides democracy for promoting social conflict and disrupting the harmony and tranquillity of the nation, while lauding the caste system, purged of its worst abominations, as a model for a corporately organized society. At the same time the RSS and BJP leadership have found it politic to routinely pledge support for democracy and India's constitution.
However, the Ayodhya mobilization must be taken as a measure of the RSS's commitment to the bourgeois-democratic institutions of the Indian Republic. That enormous provocation ended in a communal carnage, despite pledges made to India's Supreme Court by Advani and the BJP's chief minister of Uttar Pradesh (the state in which Ayodhya is located) that the mosque would
not be touched.
The RSS's antidemocratic ethos finds expression not only in its communal ideology, but also in its methods of organization. The organization is led by a sarsangchalak (a supreme director), who is appointed for life by his predecessor. Other leadership positions are also determined by appointment.
While RSS violence has principally targeted Muslims and the
ex-Untouchables, fanatical anticommunism has always been central to its ideology. In appealing to J. Nehru, the then-prime minister of India, for the lifting of the 1948 ban on the RSS, Golwalkar wrote: "The RSS having been disbanded, the intelligent youth are rapidly falling into the snares of communism.... The one effective check, the RSS, no longer exists."
The Indian National Congress and the RSS
Gandhi and Nehru, the foremost leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC), were vigorous opponents of religious chauvinism in general, and the RSS in particular. In the 1930s Nehru analyzed communalism as a form of fascism. Gandhi characterized the RSS as "a communal body with a totalitarian outlook." Yet the INC proved unable to fight communalism and ultimately connived in the partition of India. Gandhi employed Hindu phraseology in his appeals to the masses, and Nehru chose to unite India from above by inheriting the state apparatus built by the British. They both feared the consequences of a struggle to unite India from below, through in appeal to the class interests of the workers and peasants, i.e., by uniting the Hindu, Muslim and Christian masses in a struggle against their
landlord and capitalist oppressors.
Following independence, S.P. Mookerjee, a former president of the Hindu Mahasabha, was invited into the Congress-dominated cabinet. Nehru's Home Minister Vallabhai Patel, the Congress president and a virulent anticommunist, was plotting to bring the RSS into Congress. Gandhi's assassination, however, cut across Patel's plans, enabling Nehru to isolate the RSS from the mainstream of ruling class politics.
The Resurgence of the RSS and the Tasks Before the Working Class
The emergence of the RSS as a potent political force is a testament to the organic incapacity of the Indian bourgeoisie to overcome the legacy of India's feudal and colonial past and bring about the genuine, democratic unification of its many peoples. Indeed, the history of the Indian republic has been characterized by growing social inequality and the
ever-increasing communalization, caste-ization and regionalization of politics. Unable to offer any progressive solution to the prevailing conditions of mass unemployment, poverty, disease and illiteracy, the bourgeoisie has dredged up the most retrograde ideologies as a means of channeling the frustrations of the people in a reactionary direction.
The rise of the BJP-RSS is a consequence of the acute crisis brought about by the collapse of the nationalist economic strategy on which the Indian bourgeoisie based it rule until 1991, the collapse of the Congress-centered political system with which that strategy was associated, and the absence of a broad-based, independent working class alternative. Historically, the Indian working class has been amongst the most combative in Asia. Its current paralysis is the product of the betrayals of the Stalinist parties, which have systematically subordinated the working class to so-called progressive sections of the bourgeoisie.
Already in the latter half of the 1980s the BJP was able to capitalize on the turn of its bourgeois rivals to communal and caste-based politics. it also garnered considerable support by voicing the demand of sections of the middle class for a loosening of import controls and greater access to Western consumer goods. The RSS, meanwhile, has exploited the absence of proper public services to extend its influence through a network of schools and social service organizations.
The post-1991 dismantling of import controls and the reorienting of India's economy more openly and directly to the world capitalist market has generated contradictory impulses in the Indian petty bourgeoisie. It has whetted its appetite for more privileges, while increasing its anxiety over the pace and direction of economic change and its sense of inferiority
in relation to its Western counterparts.
The Indian petty bourgeois, anxious about his future and debilitated by his present position, takes solace in a mythical past of Hindu greatness--RSS-inspired academics argue that virtually all modern inventions were anticipated in the Vedas--and by striking out against the minorities, the former Untouchables and the toilers. Hindu rashtra holds out to aggrieved petty-bourgeois layers the delusion of a radical, but ordered change, which will give them access to all the consumer goods of the West, without subjecting India to imperialist domination.
DIWAN AHMED ahmeddiwan@home.com wrote in message
news:38922530.8988FF8E@home.com...
Psudos, the habitual hindu-haters should stop whining...here are some reasons why they are completely wrong:
1) In a democracy, people have freedom to form groups, associations and organizations. This freedom is not limited to only political organizations or democratic organizations. As long as organizations of people do not violate laws of the land, their freedoms can not be violated. Neither Islamic organizations
nor Christian organizations have shown internal democracy - and they are not precluded from public life. Why Hindu organizations are seingled out?
2) Organizations and people's associations have a right to participate in social, cultural, economic and political life of the nation. This right is not limited to only political organizations or organizations that are constituted with internal democracy.
3) Individuals have a right to serve government and people and public life. Such right has been excercised by Islamic fundamentalists, communists, congressmen, missionaries, dalits and even foreigners like Sonia. Some of these people have been demanding reservations and special treatment simply on the ground of being associated with a particular social, religious or
gender affilliation. In the past, such right has been excercised by criminals, terrorists, fundamentalists, individuals who have espoused absolute hate for India and Indians. Than how can only patriots and India-lovers be denied such right? How can individuals, merely on the basis of association with RSS, be considered second-class citizens and be discriminated?
4) It is Pseudos who have been promoting communalism, terrorism,
separatism, no-nation theory, multi-nation-theory, two-nation theory - simply to deny and crush hindu aspirations in their own ancestral land.
5) What is wrong with majoritism? Majoritism is the bed rock of
democracy not minoritism. Pseudos like to wag the dog by its tail. They want to turn minoritism as a ruling creed, majoritism banned as a crime, and majority turned into second-class citizens. They want full freedoms to minority-based organizations but exile the majority-oriented organizations.
6) It was Nehru that had banned RSS in 1948 and Sardar Patel was only trying to lift the ban by pleading on behalf of RSS with Nehru's Stalinist mindset. The unfortunate assisination of of Gandhi was used to ban Hindutva organizations by wholesale even though courts could not establish any conspiracy beyond
a lone individual acting on his own. It was a case of Stalinist persecution of Hindutva lanuched by Nehru. That is how Colonialists used to deal with proponents of freedom movement. It was how Nehru was trying to persecute the proponents of Hindutva. It was wrong than and it is wrong now. It can not stand
anymore in Hindustan. Hindus are wide awake now.
Sid Harth wrote:
My dear RSSBaiter,
Does that help? These bastards do not want to listen. They are
pushing their heinous saffonization agenda, no matter who says what about it.
Sid
rssbaiter@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
news:DJbk4.1947$Sa2.83090@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Not a happy model
The Hindustan Times
Jan 6, 2000
Khaki shorts are no longer something to be kept under wraps. That is really the message, but the decision of Mr Keshubhai Patel's government in Gujarat to lift the 14-year old ban on its government employees from hobnobbing with the RSS may amount to something more than a mere sartorial change.
Since the chief minister himself is rooted in the RSS shakhas of
Gandhi's home state, he was already in a position to frame policies that would help his friends in the Sangh parivar to paint the province saffron.
There was no need, therefore, for an even closer link between the government and the RSS. So, his decision may be regarded as no more than a flourish of sorts, an act of wearing his colours on his sleeves, as it were.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the ban continues to be in
force where the all-India services like the IAS, IPS and, for some strange reason, the forest services, are concerned. It may be pertinent to observe, therefore, that the reason why the ban was originally imposed was not all that innocent.
In this context, a close perusal of the reasons for its
promulgation in 1986 might provide an interesting insight. As also the names of the 15 other organisations which were put out of bounds at the time for government employees in the state.
It is worth recalling that the RSS was banned, first, in the
aftermath of Gandhi's assassination, then during the Emergency and again after the Babri masjid demolition. The organisation claims to be interested only in social service but its detractors are not entirely convinced.
Hence, they feel that it will now be used in Gujarat to advance
the BJP's so-called hidden agenda. Prima facie, there may not be anything wrong for a government employee to be a member of an outfit engaged in humanitarian work, according to the organisation's published programme.
But the reputation of the RSS, and the circumstances in which it
was earlier banned, tend to raise questions about those who are its members. it is not surprising, however, that the lifting of the ban should have taken place in Gujarat, for the BJP likes to regard it as its "model" state.
But the model which those government employees with a pronounced
saffron tinge will now pursue may not please everyone.
