RSS Centenary: In Search of an Icon!

[Centenary celebrations of RSS - the biggest 'self-proclaimed' cultural organisation in the world -- comprising of Hindus are on.

Much is being said about its longevity etc., and much will be said about it in coming days, it remains to be seen if it is ready to take a fresh look at some discomforting aspects of its own history when it is embarking on a journey towards what it calls as ‘new horizons’]

Ram Lila, the dramatic folk re-enactment of the life of Rama is still popular in Northern India.

Anyone who has watched this programme -- especially in villages or towns -- might have noticed a particular scene where god curses a sage for his misdemeanour that he will get a donkey’s face for his actions and will not even realise that he has got this new face.

One is reminded of this story -- which tells us the great hiatus between claims and reality -- whenever an individual or a formation starts bragging about its achievements that have no basis in reality.

Leaders of the Hindutva Supremacist movement in this part of South Asia look no different when they declare from the rooftops the “great role their political ancestors have played during the freedom movement”. It is a different matter that any objective student of India’s history -- especially of the Independence struggle -- is conversant with hundreds or thousands of pages, books, monographs written or documented to underline the contrary, their meek behaviour and compromising role during the very struggle.

To cover up their non-participation, one can also witness their leaders trying to give another spin to the whole idea of the freedom struggle itself. One can recall how a senior member of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet, Nirmala Sitharaman, had tried to do this on the floor of Parliament itself when she said: 'Cow protectionism was the spirit behind India’s freedom movement' or a top leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) giving equal importance to BJP's electoral victory in 2014 with Independence day.

Perhaps, it was that tune only when RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat is reported to have tried to give a new spin to the non-participation of Hindutva activists in the historic anti-colonial struggle waged by the Indian masses under the leadership of Congress and different strands of the revolutionary movement. The occasion was the three-day event organised at Vigyan Bhavan, Delhi, to celebrate 100 years of RSS.

As rightly noted by analysts, Bhagwat tried to differentiate between ‘India’s political independence on August 15, 1947’ and what he termed as its ‘real’ independence which according to him supposedly happened at the ‘consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024’ .

 ‘He gave the perverse logic that the nation’s spirit was lying dormant till 2024 and it was activated only after the Ram Mandir was consecrated.’[-do-]

No doubt, the RSS supremo wants us to forget how pioneers of their movement sent mercy petitions to the Britishers appealing for their early release from jail or how  their ideologues refused to raise a slogan against the British colonial regime and focused themselves on building Hindu Unity, portraying Muslims, not the British colonialists, as their enemy.

Read Also: Does RSS Chief Mean What he Says?

What is surprising that their stories change, scenarios change, but their zeal to give a backdoor entry to their pioneers in the annals of history remain unabated.

A veteran pracharak  (in the lexicon of the Sangh, a whole-timer activist is called a pracharak) engaged in a similar attempt last month.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS!

The occasion was the celebrations around the anniversary of India’s Independence.

According to the pracharak, Dr K B Hedgewar himself (who was five years away from founding the RSS along with top leaders of Hindu Mahasabha) placed the resolution for complete independence for India in 1920 itself during the Nagpur Conference of the Congress Party 

The said lecture was delivered by this gentleman a day before August 15, in front of a gathering of swayamsevaks.

The only irritant in this whole story is what is documented in pages of history of the Independence movement.

Anyone who has studied up to middle school level knows that it was at the Lahore Congress of 1929 that the Congress party moved a resolution for ‘Poorna Swaraj’ (complete independence) when Jawaharlal Nehru was president of Congress. It was also decided to celebrate January 26, 1930, as the first Independence Day. It was the same session of Congress that resolved to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Bipan Chandra and other leading historians have, in a widely published book, India’s Struggle for Independence, provided details of the whole effort

“Jawaharlal Nehru’s Presidential Address was a stirring call to action: “We have now an open conspiracy to free this country from foreign rule and you, comrades, and all our countrymen and

countrywomen are invited to join it.” Nehru also made it known that in his view liberation did not mean only throwing off the foreign yoke: “I must frankly confess that I am a socialist and a republican, and am no believer in kings and

princes, or in the order which produces the modern kings of industry, who have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even the kings of old, and whose methods are as

predatory as those of the old feudal aristocracy.” [Chapter 21: The Gathering Storm 1927–29 Page 3,94]

The book also describes the historic event of the unfurling of the tricolour on the banks of river Ravi.

‘On the banks of the river Ravi, at midnight on December 31, 1929, the tricolour flag of Indian independence was unfurled amidst cheers and jubilation. Amidst the excitement, there was also a grim resolve, for the year to follow was to be one of hard struggle’.

[India’s Struggle for Independence 1857–1947

-Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan, K. N. Panikkar, Penguin, 1987]

The claim by this pracharak demonstrated one more thing that seems common in Hindutva circles. It appears that they do not even bother to read or listen to their own people, even senior leaders.

Recall, it was only last year that Dattatreya Hosbale, supposed to be number two in the RSS hierarchy, at a book release function mentioned the incident ‘when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru declared Purna Swaraj at Lahore in 1929’. He was speaking at an event to launch the book, Man of the Millenia – Dr Hedgewar, in the Parliament complex. 

One is surprised to see the ease with which such alt facts - “alternative facts,” -  often shortened to alt-facts [refers to the idea of presenting subjective or false information as objective truth] are shared with confidence among Right-wing circles.

WHO ‘SAVED’ DEORAS FROM BHAGAT SINGH?

In such an ambience, it becomes difficult for these volunteers of Hindu Rashtra to even believe how their political ancestors refused to give a slogan against the British colonial regime, and instead focused on building Hindu Unity during those tumultuous days.

The fact that RSS kept itself aloof from the anti- colonial mass struggle has not only been documented by critics of the Hindutva project or independent historians, one can spot voices from the Sangh circles themselves who have expressed their differences with the official stand.

Balasaheb Deoras, the third RSS supremo, was one such leading figure who had frankly shared an anecdote related to his young days, exposing the great hiatus between what RSS claimed and what it actually did during the freedom struggle. What is remarkable is that this has been published by people associated with the ideology:

“When we were studying in college we use to feel inspired by the ideals of patriots like Bhagat Singh. Many a times we sincerely felt that like Bhagat Singh we should also do something courageous. Within RSS, there never use to be much discussion around contemporary politics, revolution etc which appealed youth. Therefore we youngsters felt less attracted towards Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his comrades were executed, we felt so excited that some of us decided to leave homes and undertake some adventurous programme to challenge the Britishers.  We also felt that we should not take any such drastic step without informing Doctor ji. My friends decided that I should go and inform Doctor Hedgewar about it.

All of us went to meet Doctor ji and I shared what we have been thinking before him. When Doctor listened to this grand scheme, he organised a meeting to convince us about the idiocy of this scheme and comprehend the superior nature of Sangh’s work. This meeting continued for seven days from morning till evening and later from 10 pm to 3 am. Listening to Doctor ji’s penetrating thoughts and his invaluable guidance we experienced complete change in our approach towards our ideas and ideals. Since that day we dropped our illogical schemes and resolved to move on in life. Our live got a new direction and our minds got settled  

(Smriti Kan, A compilation of anecdotes from highly respected Dr Hedgewar’s life, RSS Prakashan Vibhag, Nagpur, translated into English)

There is nothing surprising about the way Hedgewar ‘saved’ Deoras from joining the freedom struggle.

Remember, this was not the first time that Deoras had expressed his differences with the RSS leadership about its compromising approach vis-a-vis British rule. In his book, The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right’, author Nilanjan Mukhopadhay narrates:

“During the Quit India Movement in 1942, Deoras approached Golwalkar and expressed his interest in joining Mahatma Gandhi’s movement. He appealed, “In 1931, Hedgewar participated in the Jungle Satyagraha after leaving Paranjape in charge of the Sangh. You have declared me to be the actual sarsanghchalak and call yourself a mere proxy holder. Since you are already at the helm of affairs, allow me to join the Quit India Movement, while you remain in charge of RSS.”

But Golwalkar stuck to this resolve of keeping the RSS apolitical.”

IGNOBLE BEHAVIOUR?

History bears witness to the fact that from the days of the struggle led by the legendary Tilaka Majhi (1757 AD) to the historic Quit India Movement (1942) or the Royal Indian Navy Strike (1946), the near-200 years of British rule in India was met with resistance at different levels and led by different sections.

The first half of the 20th century witnessed the coalescence of different anti-British forces under the Congress banner, the emergence of the communist movement as well as the revolutionary movement led by the likes of Bhagat Singh and Chandrasekhar Azad, all of which posed a serious challenge to colonial rule.

The emergence of the Indian National Army under the leadership of Subhash Chandra Bose is another memorable chapter of that period.

But all of these developments, as well as the growing aspirations of the Indian people to be free, could not inspire the Hindutva ideologues to push the organisations they led to join this struggle.

Contrary to what they would like us to believe, there are strong commonalities between Hindu communalists and Muslim communalists. Neither the Hindu communalists led by the likes of V D Savarkar and M S Golwalkar nor the group led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah participated in the Quit India movement. Their support for British rule is also evident in the fact that the Hindu Mahasabha was running coalition governments in Bengal and parts of today’s Pakistan with the Muslim League.

While Syama Prasad Mookerjee, then the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, was a senior minister in the Shahid Surhawardy-led government, his party supremo Savarkar was on a whirlwind tour of the country holding public meetings and appealing to the youth to join the imperial British Army with the slogan ‘militarise Hinduism and Hinduise [the] nation’.

Anyone who has studied the Independence struggle knows that it was a ‘weak point’ as far as Hindutva formations in general and the RSS in particular are concerned. Much has been written about the fact that not only did the RSS not participate in the struggle, instead focusing on ‘organising Hindus’, but it even deterred its activists from joining the movement.

In fact, the RSS played such an ignoble role during that tumultuous period that today they find it difficult to defend themselves over their inaction.

To save themselves from such discomfiting questions, they either appropriate a leader from that period and show his or her proximity with the ideals of Hindutva or project some minor player in such struggles as the ‘Real Hero’ of the struggle.

The slow metamorphosis of Hedgewar as a ‘leader of Jungle Satyagrah’ is being envisaged.

Perhaps a detailed treatment of this whole episode is important to understand how it is being done.

Jungle Satyagraha - The Real Heroes!

The Union Ministry of Culture declared three years ago that a new museum would be built at Pusad in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra, in memory of the 1930 ‘Jungle Satyagraha’. Reportedly, it will be dedicated to Hedgewar, ‘who led the agitation at Pusad as part of the civil disobedience movement’.

Hedgewar, the first RSS supremo, and some founding members did participate in the Satyagraha. Hedgewar was jailed for nine months, which the British government later commuted. However, this memorial is being justified with the familiar narrative that when Congress was in power, it neglected the real heroes of the Independence struggle, which the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is out to correct with its ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsava’.

Read Also: Hindutva’s Unending Search for an Imaginary Past

But facts speak to the contrary. The Jungle Satyagraha was led by regional leaders, such as lawyer, freedom-fighter and Congress member from Nagpur MV Abhyankar, Wamanrao Joshi, a Marathi journalist, playwright, and freedom fighter from Amravati and MS ‘Bapuji’ Aney, an educationist, freedom fighter and founder of the Congress Nationalist Party. It is the same Aney who also wrote the introduction to Golwalkar’s highly controversial book, We or Our Nationhood Defined, which RSS would like to forget.

The rationale to organise this Satyagraha was simple. It was a solidarity action with the historic Dandi Yatra against the draconian British laws that limited people’s access to forests and forest produce. The Maharashtra State Gazetteers (Yeotmal) provides details of the movement:

“The forest law was defied in Berar as in other parts of the country. MV Abhyankar and Wamanrao Joshi were arrested for their protests. On 10 July 1930, Bapuji Aney took over the leadership to inaugurate the ‘Forest Satyagraha’. With the party of volunteers, he cut grass from the reserved forests at Pusad at Yavatmal and was arrested. He was charged with the offence of ‘Theft’ under Section 379 and convicted...The Satyagraha started spreading in Central Provinces and Berar. The Gond and other Adivasi tribals, too, participated in thousands.”

Considering this history, is it not appropriate to dedicate the museum to Abhaynkar, Joshi, the thousands of tribals who participated in the Satyagraha, and Aney, who resigned from the Legislative Assembly in solidarity with Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha? Why hand it to the memory of Hedgewar, who desisted from calling his own organisation to join the movement despite prodding by swayamsevaks, whom he actively discouraged from joining?

Biographies of Hedgewar written by votaries of exclusivist Hindutva corroborate his position, recording that he “sent information that the Sangh will not participate in the Satyagraha”. ‘Sangh Vriksh ke Beej: Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar’ by CP Bhishikar, published by Suruchi Prakashan in 1994, is considered the official biography of Hedgewar. It has details of what the organisation then thought. He writes,

“Mahatma Gandhi had called upon the people to break different laws of the government. Gandhi himself launched Salt Satyagraha undertaking Dandi Yatra. Dr Saheb [Hedgewar] sent information everywhere that the Sangh will not participate in the Satyagraha. However, those wishing to participate individually in it were not prohibited. This meant that any responsible worker of the Sangh could not participate in the Satyagraha.”

Hedgewar joined the Satyagraha not as an RSS man but in his personal capacity. The idea was that it “could give him an opportunity to get acquainted with patriotic youth from many places... that would greatly help to expand Sangh activities in the future.” These sentences are recorded on page 111 of Hedgewar: The Epoch Maker’, published in 2021, edited by HV Seshadri and published by the Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan.

Read Also: Why Modi and Sangh Parivar Want to ‘Disremember’ Golwalkar

NH Palkar, who wrote Hedgewar’s biography in Marathi, which carries an introduction by Golwalkar, the Sangh’s second supremo, throws more light on what Hedgewar told aspiring swayamsevaks keen to join the movement.

“If you receive punishment for two years, then are you ready for it?’ When these youth showed readiness to undergo this punishment, then doctor [Hedgewar] used to say, ‘Then why not give this much time for Sangh’s work considering that you have been punished by the Britishers?’”

On pages 39 and 40 of the fourth volume of ‘Shriguruji Samagra Darshan—Collected Works of MS Golwalkar in Hindi’, published by Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, Nagpur, in 1974, is described a similar incident of RSS under Hedgewar consciously staying away from the freedom struggle. All of these demonstrate the compromising attitude of the Sangh leadership not only during the Jungle Satyagraha but even later.

Hedgewar lived in a unique phase of world history, when old feudal colonialism was crumbling, and a new world was emerging. Yet he yearned for a Hindu Rashtra based on the ‘glorious traditions of Hinduism’, which saw Muslims as bigger adversaries than British colonialists.

As events demonstrate, Hedgewar’s refusal to involve RSS in the struggle and even appealing to the RSS volunteers to participate in the struggle at individual level corroborate one thing -- his involvement in the Jungle Satyagraha was basically for establishing contacts with youth from the region and “bring them in the RSS fold”.

Whatever the votaries of Sangh Parivar may claim, a new-look Hedgewar refuses to emerge. It would be a travesty of justice to declare him leader of the Jungle Satyagraha who had no qualms poking fun at the patriots jailed for fighting for the country’s freedom.

“Going to jail is today considered a sign of patriotism...There can be no salvation for the country until this type of fleeting emotion gives place to positive and lasting feelings of devotion and sustained efforts,” he said, according to Hedgewar: The Epoch Maker.

It cannot be denied that people who yearn to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra want to sanitise their founders and present them as great heroes. Their attempts remind of what the third RSS supremo Deoras reportedly said: “We missed the bus [of approaching Freedom]’, as cited by a well-known author-journalist Rambahadur Rai in Jansatta Hindi newspaper on June 28, 2003. According to the newspaper, Deoras was candid enough to admit that the RSS, though established during the anti-colonial struggle, could not see Independence around the corner and was “overwhelmed by events”.

Perhaps, Hindutva votaries need to admit that they “missed the bus”, as they boarded a different bus which left them on the wrong side of history.

The writer is a senior independent journalist. The views are personal.