|
OPINION
What is the RSS ?
A ueteran socialist on an 'age-old enemy'
By
MADHU LIMAYE
I ENTERED political
life in 1937. I was quite young then but as I had passed my
matriculation examination at a relatively early age, I also entered
college quite early. Quite active in Pune in those days were the RSS
and the Savarkarites (followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the
one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist political
organisations on the other. On May 1, 1937 we took out a march to
observe May Day. The marchers were attacked by the RSS and
Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known revolutionary Senapati
Bapat and our socialist leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had
serious differences with these Hindutva organisations ever since.
Our first difference
with the RSS was over the issue of nationalism. We believed that every
citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. But the RSS and the
Savarkarites came up with their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali
Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. He believed that
India was made up of two nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu
nation. Savarkar too said the same thing.
The other major
difference between us was that we dreamt of the birth of a democratic
republic while the RSS claimed that democracy was a western concept
that was not appropriate for India. In those days members of the RSS
were full of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav Sadashiv
Golwalkar) was not only the sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was
its ideological guru as well.
There is amazing
similarity between the thoughts of Guruji and the Nazis. One of
Guruji’s books, We or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several
editions, its fourth edition having been published in 1947. At one
point in the book, Guruji says, "The non-Hindu people in Hindustan
must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and
hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of
the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not
only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards
this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the
positive attitude of love and devotion instead – in a word, they must
cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country wholly subordinated
to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far
less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights."
In other words, Guruji
wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted
all their citizenship rights taken away. Incidentally, these ideas of
his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in
the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian
ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be
treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in Germany.
The extent of Guruji’s
sympathies for the views of the Nazi Party is evident from the
following passage from We or Our Nationhood Defined: "To keep up the
purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by
her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at
its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown 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 Hindustan to learn and profit by" (We or Our
Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).
You might say that
this is an old book, of a time when India was in the throes of the
struggle for independence. But then there is his second book, Bunch of
Thoughts. I cite below an example from this "popular publication"
which was brought out in November 1966. In this book, while discussing
India’s internal security problem, Guruji identifies three internal
dangers. One is Muslims, the second Christians and the third
Communists. In Guruji’s view, every Indian Muslim, every Christian and
every Communist is a danger to the nation’s security. Such is his
ideology.
Our second major
difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question.
They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is
its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of
brahminism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can
be no economic and social equality in
India
until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are
demolished.
But Guruji says,
"Another unique feature of our society was the varna vyavastha (caste
system, the former occupation-based classification of society) which
is today vilified as jati pratha (a rigid caste system)." He adds,
"Society was conceived of in the image of an all-powerful god, of four
aspects, who was to be worshipped by different people in their own
ways as determined by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was
considered great because he was the purveyor of knowledge. The
Kshatriya was considered equally great because he destroyed the
enemies. The Vaishya was no less important than others because through
agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a social need. The Sudra too was
important for he served society through his workmanship." Here it is
very shrewdly being asserted that through his workmanship the Sudra is
fulfilling an important social need. But Chanakya’s Arthashastra, from
which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly states that it is the
religious duty of the Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and
the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji replaces service of the
upper castes with "service of society".
The fourth issue on
which we differ is that of language. We are in favour of promoting the
languages of the people. All regional languages, after all, are
indigenous. But what does Guruji have to say on this? Guruji says that
for now Hindi should be made the common language for all while the
ultimate objective should be to make Sanskrit the national language.
He says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "For convenience, Hindi should be
given primacy as our link language until such time as Sanskrit is
adopted as our national language." Thus Hindi is merely for
convenience, the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.
We have had
differences over this right from the start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and
Lokmanya Tilak, we too have always been in favour of the regional
languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on anyone. We would like to
see Tamil as the prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra
Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and Bengali in West Bengal. If the
non-Hindi speaking states wish to adopt English, it should be up to
them. We have no differences with them on this. But Sanskrit is the
language of a handful of people, the language of a particular caste.
Making Sanskrit the national language means the supremacy of a handful
of people over others, something we definitely do not want.
Fifth, the national
movement for independence had accepted the idea of a federal state. In
a confederation, the centre would definitely have certain powers on
specific matters but all others would be a subject matter for the
states. But following partition, in a bid to strengthen the centre,
the Constitution stipulated a concurrent list. As per this list,
several subjects were made concurrent, subjects over which both the
centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. What was originally
meant to be under the domain of different states was included in the
concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. Thus the federal state
came into existence.
But the RSS and its
chief ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to
this basic constitutional provision. These people ridicule the very
concept of ‘a union of states’ and maintain that this Constitution,
which envisages a confederation of states, should be abolished. Guruji
says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "The Constitution must be reviewed and
the idea of a unitary state should be written into the new
Constitution." Guruji wants a unitary or, in other words, a
centralised state. He says that this system of states should be done
away with. What he wants is one nation, one state, one legislature and
one executive. In other words, he wants to abolish state legislatures
and state ministries. That means they wish to see the rule of the
stick. If they were to capture power, they would doubtless bring into
existence a centralised state.
Another issue was the
tricolour, the flag chosen by the national movement. Hundreds of
Indians sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt of lathis for
the honour and glory of our chosen national flag. But surprisingly,
the RSS has never accepted the tricolour as the national flag. It
always swore by the saffron flag, asserting that the saffron flag has
been the flag of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.
Just as Guruji
rejected the concept of a federal state, similarly, he had no faith in
a democratic system. He was of the firm view that democracy is a
concept imported from the West and the system of parliamentary
democracy did not jell with Indian thought and Indian civilisation. As
for socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. He repeatedly
said that all isms, including socialism and democracy, were alien
ideas which should be rejected, that Indian society should be founded
on Indian culture. Speaking for ourselves, we believe in parliamentary
democracy, in socialism, and we aspire to establish socialism
consistent with Gandhian principles in India through peaceful means.
While we were engaged
in a struggle against the Congress party’s autocratic rule, our
leader, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we should join
hands with all opposition forces to save the nation and dislodge from
power the Congress party which was responsible for our humiliation at
the hands of the Chinese. I had lengthy discussions with Doctorsaheb
on the issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept insisting
throughout that we cannot have any alliance with the RSS and the Jan
Sangh. Ultimately, Doctorsaheb asked me, "Do you accept my leadership
or not?" I replied, "Yes, I do." He said it wasn’t necessary for us to
agree on every issue or for him to have to convince me on every issue.
Let there be an issue or two on which we disagreed. And since he was
only thinking of a political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I
should cooperate with him, let his idea be given a "trial". Perhaps he
would be proven right, he said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced
however that a clash between the RSS and the Lohiaite ideologies was
inevitable.
It is a fact that we
formed an alliance with these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs
Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency, increasingly resorted to
dictatorial methods, started promoting Sanjay Gandhi and the Maruti
scandal surfaced. Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if the
opposition did not unite under the banner of a single party it would
be impossible to defeat Mrs Gandhi and dictatorship. Choudhary Charan
Singh was also of the view that we should come together and form a
united party. While we were in jail, we were all asked to give our
opinions on the need to form such a party and contest elections. I
recall sending a message that in my view we must contest elections.
Millions of people would participate in elections. Elections are a
dynamic process. As the electoral tempo builds up, the shackles of
emergency are bound to snap and people are bound to exercise their
democratic right. Therefore, I stressed, we must participate in
elections.
Since Lok Nayak
Jaiprakash Narain and other leaders were of the view that without
coming together under the banner of one party we could not succeed, we
(socialists) too gave it our consent. But I would like to stress that
the understanding that was arrived at was between political parties –
the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya
Loktantrik Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. We did not
come to any arrangement with the RSS, nor did we accept any of its
demands. What is more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was
circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that on July 7, 1976
Choudhary Charan Singh had raised the issue of a possible clash of
interests because of dual membership when members of the RSS also
became members of the new party. In response, the then acting general
secretary of the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the
proposed party should feel free to formulate whatever membership
criteria it wanted. He even said that since the RSS, having faced many
constraints, had been dissolved anyway, the question of RSS membership
did not arise.
Later, when the
constitution of the proposed Janata Party was being drawn up, the
subcommittee appointed to draft the constitution proposed that members
of any organisation whose aims, policies and programmes were in
conflict with the aims, policies and programmes of the Janata Party
should not be given membership to the new party. Given the
self-evident meaning of such a membership criterion, there was no
question of anyone opposing it. However, it is significant that the
sole opposition to this came from Sunder Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh).
At a meeting convened in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference
was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on behalf of the
Jan Sangh and the RSS, stating that a section of leaders of the
proposed party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be raised in
connection with membership of the Janata Party. But several leaders
told me that no such assurances were given because the RSS was nowhere
in the picture at the time when the idea of a merger of opposition
political parties was mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison
at the time and even if there was some secret understanding, I had no
part in it.
I can categorically
assert that the election manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any
way reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each point in the
manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is it not a fact that the manifesto
of the Janata Party spoke of a socialist society based on secular,
democratic and Gandhian principles and in which there was no mention
of Hindu Rashtra? The manifesto also assured the minorities equal
citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their rights. In contrast,
Guruji wanted to deny equal citizenship rights to the minorities and
wanted them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu Rashtra. The Janata
Party was committed to decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore
proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish separate states,
abolish state legislatures and ministries while the Janata Party
emphasised the need for greater decentralisation. In other words, the
Janata Party had no desire to snatch away the autonomy of states. The
manifesto spoke of socialism, social justice and equality. Did the
manifesto state that it upholds the caste system? Did it maintain that
the Sudras’ duty was to devote their life in the service of others? On
the contrary, the manifesto not only promised that the backward castes
would have full opportunity to progress, it pledged special policies
for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for them in government jobs.
Yes, it is true that
members of the RSS did not genuinely accept the provisions of the
party’s election manifesto. It was my contention and I had once even
complained in writing to Kushabhau Thakre that during discussions you
people (RSS, Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you at
heart totally disagree with. That is why your motives are suspect. I
wrote this letter to him a long time ago and I have always had doubts
about the RSS. I have had these doubts since Doctorsaheb’s time (Dr
Ram Manohar Lohia died in 1967). But despite this, the fact remains
that to fight dictatorship we entered into a political alliance with
them.
Since it was Lok Nayak
Jaiprakashji’s desire that all parties should merge for a united
opposition to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did not make
any compromises, I consented to our coming together. At the same time,
I would like to say that from the beginning I was very clear in my
mind that to emerge as a unified and a credible body the Janata Party
would have to do two things. One, the RSS would have to change its
ideology and accept the ideal of a secular democratic state. Two, the
various organisations that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi Parishad, would have to
dissolve themselves and merge with the secular-minded trade union and
student wings of the Janata Party. I was very clear about this from
the beginning and as the Janata Party had given me the responsibility
to manage the affairs of its trade union and student wings, it was my
consistent attempt throughout to ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad
and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate existence.
But these people
started insisting on their autonomy. In fact, these organisations
always function on the dictates of
Nagpur
(RSS headquarters), they believe in the one leader principle. Take,
for example, Guruji himself. Guruji maintained that they create a
mind-set which is totally disciplined and where people accept whatever
they tell them. This organisation operates on a single principle: one
leader. They do not believe in democracy, they have no faith in
discussions and debate. They have no economic policy. For example, in
his Bunch of Thoughts, Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition
of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was deeply saddened, deeply
disturbed by the abolition of the zamindari system. But he felt no
compassion for the poor.
I told members of the
RSS that you must abandon your ideal of organising Hindus alone and
find a place for people of all religions within your organisation,
that you must merge your different class-based organisations with
those of the Janata Party. They responded by saying that this could
not be done so soon, that there were very many difficulties involved
but they did want to change, bit by bit. They continued to give such
evasive replies.
From their behaviour I
concluded that they had no intention of changing. Especially after the
assembly elections of June 1977, when they managed to gain power in
four states and one union territory, after which they began to think
that with this newly acquired clout they had no need to change. Now
that they had already captured four states, they would gradually also
gain control of other states and finally even the centre. The leaders
of other political parties in the Janata Party were older leaders who
would not live long; and they would ensure that no younger (non-RSS,
non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the top.
As is evident from the
pages of the Organiser and Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and
Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata Party leader who is not
from their parivar. I, of course, was their special favourite, the
target of special attention. They probably devoted more column space
to abusing me than they did even for Mrs Indira Gandhi.
For a protracted
period I persisted in dialogue with these people. I recall an occasion
when Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) visited me at my
residence in Mumbai. Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971
polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule once before the
emergency. On the fourth occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and
Madhavrao Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim that I made
no attempt to talk to them. But I finally reached the conclusion that
they have closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.
On the contrary, the
RSS specialises in casting young minds in a particular mould from a
very young age. The first thing they do is ‘freeze’ the minds of
children and of youth, making them impervious. After this they are
rendered incapable of responding to other ideas.
Still, I tried. On one
occasion I convened a meeting of all trade union leaders. The
representatives of all constituents of the Janata Party attended but
the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they
hurled abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar efforts were made
with the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Yuva Morcha but despite all
attempts at a merger, they held aloof. This is only because of the RSS’
desire to function as a "super party".
Their aim is not only
to enter into every aspect of people’s life but also to control it. In
an article written for The Indian Express around that time, George
Fernandes used the example of Dattopant Thengdi to make the same
point. Thengdi responded by saying that the RSS intended to have all
of society under its sway, it would leave no aspect of a person’s life
untouched, it would establish its hegemony in every department of
life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. Similar views have
been repeatedly asserted by Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood
Defined, as also in Bunch of Thoughts. No totalitarian organisation
allows any space for freedom, its tentacles reach everywhere: art,
music, economy, culture. This is the essence of any fascist
organisation.
The fact is that the
RSS wanted to capture the Janata Party and through it to take control
of the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously dangled the
carrot of the prime minister’s chair before several Janata Party
leaders. On the one hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the
end that he was their choice for prime minister. Every now and then
they would promise Choudhary Charan Singh that they would support his
claim to be prime minister. Concurrently, they kept giving similar
assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes. Not
once did they dare to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly
mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, "Why you, Nanaji (Deshmukh)
has never made me such a promise either. They want neither you nor me
as prime minister." Anyway, they never made any such suggestion to me,
knowing only too well that I would not deny others their due nor would
I allow others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you can’t fool this
man so what’s the point of promising him anything – it will only make
him (Limaye) even more cautious.
What these people (the
RSS) do on the odd occasion is however of little importance. Has the
RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji’s way of thinking? Only
Atalji says that we should all accept the principles of composite
nationalism, democracy, socialism, social justice, etc because we
cannot move forward without them in today’s world. But Atalji is the
only one who says this. I do not trust the other sanghis. These people
pleaded for pardon while in prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated
Indira Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the Raj
Narain case. So I have no faith in the utterances of these people. I
am of the firm belief that I could only have trusted these people
(erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata Party) if they had ousted
RSS leaders from the party, expelled them from the working committee,
placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in particular, expelled
people like Nanaji Deshmukh, Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from
the party.
Translated by Javed Anand, Communalism Combat. May 1 marks the 31st
anniversary of the united Janata Party and also the 86th birth
anniversary of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu Limaye. The
above piece, penned by Limaye soon after the split in the Janata
Party, was published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. Though
dated, many of the issues he raises in the article are relevant even
today.
post your comments here
|
