Rakesh Sinha
THE 100-YEAR journey of the RSS has a unique feature. For most of its history, its legitimacy remained contested by the Nehruvian state and the left-liberal intelligentsia. Instead of discourses on the perspectives the RSS stands for, there has been a perpetual political war against it. The organisation was blamed for everything under the sun—from the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi to communal riots, links with the CIA and being a semi-fascist entity. Under the pretext of secular democracy, a naked majoritarianism was practised against the RSS by predominant Nehruvian-Marxist intellectuals to the extent that there has been hardly any difference between propagandist political literature and textbook descriptions of the RSS. This has harmed the evolution of the idea of India and its social and cultural philosophy more than it has harmed the RSS itself.
If opposition to ideas, historical incidents or movements earns credit points for critics to claim a secular democratic identity, it inevitably leads to the decay of critical thinking. Obsessive thinking and recycled writings dominate the intellectual world. Exactly this happened with the critics of the sangh.
Two important observations, by two votaries of socialism whose public life credentials were above board, exposed their own intellectual tradition. At the national convention of the Sampradayikata Virodhi Committee (SVC) in 1968 in New Delhi, Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan expressed his displeasure at rants against the RSS and said, “It seems that the only purpose of the convention was anti-RSS propaganda.”
A decade later, in 1978, at another SVC convention, prominent CPI(M) leader Zahoor Siddiqui was stunned to find speeches blaming the RSS for coercion of minorities during the Emergency. “There was no Golwalkar in Turkman Gate, Pipli, and Muzaffarnagar,” he said.
Intellectuals carry creative values and the potential to impact distant masses and posterity—if they shed prejudices and remain connected with common people. This gives them opportunities to raise and review their ideas. But things have been altogether different in the context of left-liberals, who assume themselves as angels of ideas and do not consider the masses more than a crowd. RSS founder K.B. Hedgewar made a phenomenal advancement. Sangh activists work among the people and deliberate in groups. The series of meetings gives the RSS space to renew its philosophy of action. Nobody can represent the RSS intellectually without being grounded in the value system and work culture of the organisation.
The growth of the RSS from 25 people to millions of swayamsevaks, and from Nagpur to across the country, is not merely a numerical or geographical expansion, but a great leap in the direction of idea-literacy across the nation. Its concepts of nation, secularism, egalitarianism and culture have proceeded through programmes—not proclamations—through meetings and constant dialogues with both the masses and the elites, rather than lofty speeches and conferences. Its activism at the grassroots has caused a Hindu reawakening. Its impact on politics is more than visible.
India’s indigenous culture, historical traditions and spiritual philosophy have been damaged by state power dominated by a Eurocentric political class in independent India, and by its predecessors—the colonial state and the Mughal rulers. The idea of India was largely reduced to a binary of religious majority and minorities. In his 1938 speech at a Hindu Yuvak Parishad function in Poona, Hedgewar raised a core question: “Why had India been enslaved more than once?” He resolved this by stating, “It was due to social fragmentation and the mutual race for aggrandising more and more power among Indian rulers, owing to a lack of nationalist feeling.”
In a dynamic world, with multiple social forces at play, both these tasks remain unaccomplished. Therefore, the RSS does not pause—even after its success in replacing the old ideas with indigenous ones, and Nehruvian elites with its own cadres in the government since 2014. It is a truism that its ideas now receive endorsement from the state, which identifies with the worldview of the RSS. But that does not end either the task or the role of the RSS.
The word contentment is not in its dictionary. It redefines its role according to changed circumstances. The RSS worked hard to bring the Janata Party to power in 1977 but refused to merge itself into its youth wing. The dual membership controversy led former Jana Sangh members to form the BJP in 1980. Earlier, it supported the movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan in 1974, and subsequently, its role in reshaping Indian politics has remained increasingly unchallenged. Being what it is, the RSS cannot close its eyes to politics—which it views as a necessary evil. The unabated de-Hinduisation of Hindus and their culture had become a prerequisite for achieving secularism under the old regime. In this context, the RSS played a vital role in defeating minorityism.
All ideological movements face a common challenge in revitalising their mission once their votaries occupy seats of power. The success of the RSS lies in keeping the majority of its members out of executive power. The tradition of critical contemplation in the RSS, across various levels, and the presence of idealists forming informal circles outside formal hierarchies, lead to self-examination. This helps the organisation correct itself—more often than not.
Variations in capitalism have generated new challenges in every society. These unconventional issues cannot be resolved by conventional modes. That is why RSS sarsanghachalak Mohan Bhagwat indicated a great step by the RSS to reach larger masses and empower them through social and cultural engagement—referred to as panch parivartan (five transformations). Identity politics in the country is the biggest challenge before it, and its ills hurt even those who vouch for “One Nation, One People”. As long as the masses remain under the shadow of caste, community, region and other narrow identities, dynastic democracy inevitably becomes a sham.
Bhagwat consolidated hindutva and distanced it from the microscopic minority of votaries who believed in aggressive language, postures and programmes—and who unhesitatingly advocated for a Hindu state. There has been space for such people, as the history of suppression of Hindus under the Mughals and the bloodbath of partition continue to reproduce anxieties—summarised by the question: Is the Hindu a dying race? Bhagwat aptly renewed Hedgewar’s vision that strength, progressively achieved through organising Hindus beyond narrow divisions, would inevitably inspire so-called minorities to rediscover their past—without abandoning their modes of worship.
Another important feature of the RSS’s vertical and horizontal growth has been its work culture. Hedgewar laid this foundation when he said, “There are no two categories of leaders and workers in the RSS; there is only one class of swayamsevaks.” This was reaffirmed by Bhagwat at his Vigyan Bhawan dialogue on August 26, when he said he was primarily a swayamsevak, at the disposal of the organisation. This plebeianisation is an extraordinary characteristic of the sangh, distinguishing it from other cadre-based organisations like the Chinese Communist Party or the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hedgewar once wrote to RSS functionary Kashinath Limaye, “Swayamsevaks are not meant to arrange tables, chairs and lay carpets at Hindu Mahasabha meetings. Such people cannot be self-inspired instruments of nation-building.”
The future of the RSS does not depend on achieving political power through its adherents or merely fulfilling its declared agenda, but in constantly refreshing its moral edge.
The author is an RSS thinker and a former Rajya Sabha member.