Why the RSS hates it 

BY PURUSHOTTAM AGARWAL

Salman Rushdie recently described the Idea of India as one of the greatest ideas of the 20th century. He is 
 right and he is wrong. Right in so far he realises the greatness of the idea. Wrong because by confining the idea to merely the 20th century, he ignores the continuity of the idea. The idea of India as a nation state is certainly a 19th or 20th century idea, but the idea of India as a pluralistic society and a multi-vocal culture with an open acceptance of the local religions goes much back into history. 

As a matter of fact, the Idea of India is exciting because it is rooted in the attempt of looking for the appropriate modern political idiom for articulating the pluralistic cultural individuality of Indian society and tradition. In its nascent phase itself the national movement evolved a minimum consensus that the only authentic political ideal for India could be that of constitutional nationalism and the democratic polity. This consensus reflected the essence of the Indian cultural experience that till date constitutes the mainstream political space. 

The fact that the political wing of the Sangh Parivar was forced to shun it’s own so-called “cultural nationalist” agenda in order to get rid of it’s political untouchability once again reiterates the real cultural core of mainstream Indian politics. The Idea of India informing this consensus is essentially a pagan idea, which celebrates plurality in the realm of ideas instead of condescendingly “tolerating” it. 

This is the single most crucial point to remember in order to grasp the significance of the idea and the RSS’ pathetic aversion to it. The following quote from Jawaharlal Nehru underscores the pagan mindset informing the idea of India. In an interview to Link (August 15, 1961), Nehru actually described himself as a “pagan” and clarified the use of the supposedly pejorative term; 

“Only in the sense that paganism is opposed to rigidity… I don’t mind a person having his own beliefs, but I don’t like the other fellow trying to impose his beliefs on me. I may accept those beliefs of course of my own free will, that is a different matter. The whole idea that others must conform to our ways, that we are the only true believers — this is contrary to my conception… It is this concept of having the whole truth, which is fundamentally opposed to the pagan concept. The whole truth is too big for any one people to grasp completely.” (Quoted here from Ravi M Bakaya, ‘One more November…And miles to go’, Mainstream November 18, 2000). 

Nehru was talking in the context of non–alignment here; hence he talks of the Judeo–Christian lineage of communism and contrasts it with his own pagan conception. I have omitted those references from the quotation not in order to make it more plausible to the communists but to focus attention on the more basic issue — the epistemological nature of mainstream Indian nationalism. Violently opposed to the pagan moorings of this nationalism is the monolithic ‘cultural nationalism’ of the RSS type. 

Historically speaking, while one section of the colonial intelligentsia tried to find a suitable modern idiom to articulate the plurality of the Indian experience, the other tried to get rid of it. The former naturally felt inclined towards the democratic polity and the liberal values, while the later felt at ease with the fascist conception of the politics and culture. With great insight, Nehru defined the communalism of all hues as “the Indian variant of Fascism”.

The Idea of India, which was articulated by the mainstream of Indian politics, is exciting precisely because on the one hand it is the authentic expression of the Indian culture and it’s dynamics and on the other it incorporates the dream of the future. A democratic polity and a liberal mindset are the natural corol-

lary to the pluralistic nature of Indian tradition and culture, while the so–called “cultural nationalism” of the RSS violates the very sprit of the Indian tradition. Democracy as a political idiom with its attendant forms and institutions may be a new and “foreign” concept, but it goes perfectly well with the social and cultural attitudes of most ordinary Indians. That is why the most illiterate, the most traditional of them took to democratic politics like fish to water. On the other hand, having invested 50 years in the building of the elusive “Hindu Nation”, the RSS even today has to put three “contentious issues” on the “back–burner”. 

The majority of the Indians still do not share the fascist mentality of the RSS because the whole epistemology and politics of the RSS is diametrically opposed to the pagan sprit informing the dominant idea of India. In such a situation, what can the RSS do but hate this idea and seek to replace it with it’s own laboured conception of Hindu Rashtra? 

Let us not be misled into believing that the RSS disapproves of the ideal of plurality only in the context of present day politics. Let us also not fool ourselves into believing that the RSS’ attempt at “historical engineering” (of “setting right past mistakes”) is confined to minorities and mosques only. The RSS is rooted in the ideas of that section of the colonial intelligentsia which suffered from tremendous guilt complex about it’s own pluralistic and pagan past and present, and pathetically tried to copy the masters. 

As is typical of a mindset suffering from guilt and inferiority, it paraded it’s obsession with the victorious culture of the masters in the garb of it’s own uniqueness. It disdains the cultural personality of it’s own society in the garb of the love of “Bharat Mata”. 

Such manipulations were necessary both in order to make the essentially alien ideology palatable and to contest the more authentic Idea of India in the name of Indianness itself. The RSS’ attitude towards the plurality within the Hindu fold is as intolerant as it is towards the very existence of anything contrary to its liking. The RSS typically locates the most contemporary political events in the framework of setting right the historical wrongs. Needless to add, it has the self–image of a high priest supervising a great sacrifice full of bloody rituals. 

The following statement of Golwalkar made in November 1948 makes the point quite clear: 
“Unfortunately the great latitude allowed to all individuals and groups resulted in the creation of many faiths and sects. The vastness of our motherland fostered many dialects which in time became so many sister languages, and gradually the grand unity in all the diversities of life began to crumble away.” 

Of special interest is the use or rather the misuse of the “unity in diversity” phrase — which in the fascist fantasies of Golwalkar seems to mean little more than the symbolic allowance benevolently given by masters! 
Also of interest is his discomfort with the fact of so many dialects being allowed to become languages. In the special variety of RSS pseudo–linguistics, all Indian languages are after all the daughters of Sanskrit and if they are not they ought to be! 

This statement, like countless others, makes the intellectual strategy of RSS clear. Instead of articulating it’s public position in it’s own crude ways, it borrows, rather steals, respectable phrases like unity in diversity, tolerance, purity in public life, etc. What actually happens in the realm of practice is quite a different matter. 
RSS calls itself a cultural organisation. Indeed it is! The point however is that culture in the RSS discourse refers neither to the individual expression of creativity nor to the vibrant social reality energised by common experiences, creative interventions and the conflicts of power. Culture in RSS lexicon means a system of concealing conflicts and oppression through the deployment of the rhetoric of hatred and violence. 

Moreover, deception and deceit define the culture of RSS itself. Such “qualities” are necessary for the survival of the idea — they may be abhorrent in the personal lives of individuals but they are a must for the life of the nation! Thus goes the “Kautilya” logic of the RSS. That is why Govindacharya can compare the hoodlums destroying the sets of Deepa Mehta film with the French revolutionaries. Uma Bharati can claim that she had in fact gone to save the mosque; and, to top it all, the Sarsanghchalak can speak the untruth of the millennium without blinking an eyelid — the mosque was not demolished it was blown up by a secret bomb! 

This idea of “selfless deceit” is central to the RSS conception of public life and raises fundamental questions about the nature of politics and it’s relation with the notion of truth. Obviously, it must be dealt with independently. But it explains RSS’ flair for conspiratorial politics and its hatred of democracy, both as an organisational principle and as a political philosophy. Deception in the RSS style of politics is neither incidental nor contingent upon the vagaries of a given situation. It is an integral part of the worldview informing the culture and politics of RSS. It is because of this worldview that the RSS successfully maintains the balance between the formal and informal channels of communication; between the official and actual pronouncements of intent and policy. And that is precisely why many commentators find nothing objectionable in the “official” 

pronouncements of the RSS. If they bothered to compare such pronouncement with what actually transpires within “reliable circles” and through the informal channels of communications they will be in for a very rude shock. 

In fact RSS was forced to formally describe itself as a cultural organisation and to adopt a written constitution only as a part of the deal with the central government after the assassination of Gandhiji. It has never shied away from its political designs and manoeuvres. The cultural organisation status is only a matter of added convenience. It is cultural when it has to control the politics of it’s various political outfits, and it is not cultural when it has to fulfil the legal and social obligations of a cultural body. 

AG Noorani has given an interesting and instructive instance of the RSS manoeuvres in this regard. When in 1978, the joint charity commissioner held the RSS liable to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, since it claimed to be a cultural organisation, Rajendra Singh and Bhaurao Deoras on Behalf of the RSS filed a legal document stating clearly: “The RSS does not participate in day–to–day politics though the sangh has a political philosophy within it’s wide sweep of cultural work. It is possible for sangh to change (it’s present) policy and even to participate in politics.”(‘The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour’— Leftword, New Delhi, 2000, p.16). In any case, there seems to be no need to participate in day–to–day politics since apart from the family member (BJP), the Sangh now has the enthusiastic associate members such as George Fernandes and Maneka Gandhi, et al. 

Noorani begins his essay by contrasting the all–pervasive resentment on the power–sharing by Jorg Heider’s ‘party with Nazi echoes’ in Austria with the RSS being at the ‘centre of power’ in India without any similar resentment. Yes, this indeed is a matter of great concern, but Noorani fails to take any notice of the role of the left and secular parties in affording respectability to RSS. Each one of them has refused to confront the fascist essence of communal politics. Logically enough, instead of the question of preventing the fascist take–over of the polity being the central agenda for secularism, it has been reduced to the question of a balancing act between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. 

That is why the ideologues of anti-Congressism have tried to co–operate with, and in the process “reform”, rank communists (read fascists) of all hues. Ironically, the United Front “tactics” of the communists was sought to be used in India not against the fascists but in collaboration with them! In such a situation how can one expect any widespread resentment with RSS controlling the centre of power? Particularly when it has responded positively to the clarion calls of reformers like George, Mamataji, Chandrababuji et al and allowed the BJP to put the contentious issues on the back–burner! 

It is a different matter altogether that sooner than later this reformers’ brigade is going to be shocked beyond their wildest apprehensions, and will have all the time in the world to record their historical blunders for the benefit of posterity. After all, where giants like JP failed worthies like George Company can hardly expect to succeed. 
The reason is very simple. The RSS is not just another organisation seeking its legitimate space in a democratic polity operating within the pluralistic cultural context. It has an agenda fundamentally at odds with the Idea of India that has made that polity possible. The RSS is “cultural” precisely in the sense that it seeks to replace the cultural mode itself. It has it’s own monolithic idea of the nation and is preface bound to hate India as we know it.