by Irfan Engineer
Manmohan Vaidya, the Joint General Secretary of the RSS, puts in a herculean effort through his article —“The Mahatma and the Sangh” (The Indian Express— April 12, 2019) to seek wider social legitimacy for the RSS misusing Mahatma Gandhi's name. Vaidya tries to make out a case that though there were differences between the Sangh and the Mahatma, the Sangh has kept Mahatma's ideals alive “through its work on rural development, organic farming, cow conservation and protection, social equality and harmony, imparting education in one's own language and swadeshi economy and lifestyle”. He then attempts to make out a case that the Mahatma recognised the Sangh's work, particularly as members of the untouchable community were also admitted in the Sangh. Finally, he seeks wider legitimacy on the ground that the Mahatma approvingly mentioned the name of the second Sarsanghchalak of the RSS—M. S. Golwalkar—in his prayer meeting in Delhi in the year 1947.
To make his points, Vaidya extensively quotes from Golwakar's speech published in his
Collected Works. In one of his speeches Golwalkar claims that the Mahatma took his (Golwalkar's) name during his prayer meeting in 1947 for which he considers himself fortunate. Golwalkar had last met Gandhiji in 1947, when Delhi was experiencing riots. Golwalkar claimed in his speech, “Even those who were non-violent by tradition had become cruel, rogue and heartless.” Golwalkar's explanation to the Mahatma as to what was happening is interesting. Golwalkar told the Mahatma: “This is our misfortune. British used to say when we leave; you people will slit each other's throat... It is bringing disrepute to us in the whole world.”
Rajmohan Gandhi, in his counter (‘What Gandhi Really Said'), gives the Matama's account of the incident, which is quite different. Rajmohan Gandhi reports with references that the Mahatma wanted Golwalkar to give a public appeal that the RSS did not stand for the killing of Muslims. Golwalkar did not want to do so and asked the Mahatma to speak on his behalf. R. Gandhi writes that the Mahatma believed that the hands of the RSS were steeped in blood.
In his attempt to shake off the image that no one from the Sangh participated in the freedom struggle, Vaidya recalls that K.B. Hedgewar, the first Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, participated in the non-cooperation movement in 1921 and civil disobedience movement in 1930 for which he served two prison sentences. The RSS was formed in 1925 and so in 1921, Hedgewar could not have participated in the movement from the RSS. In order to participate in the civil disobedience movement in 1930, Vaidya omits to inform us that Hedgewar first resigned from the RSS.
Mahatma's Hinduism vs. Hindutva Political Ideology
Vaidya is less than honest as he tries to misappropriate the Mahatma's legacy to seek legitimacy for the Sangh. To compare Gandhiji's inclusive Hinduism with Hindutva, which is a communitarian, authoritarian and exclusivist political ideology, is to compare chalk with cheese. Gandhiji would never have in any way legitimised the Sangh's political ideology. The foundation of the Sangh's ideology—Hindutva— is a vilification of what they describe as ‘foreign religions', mainly, Islam and Christianity. The Hindutva ideology is in essence an adaptation of racist ideology of the Nazis and giving it a “Hindu” colour by invoking certain selective traditions prevalent in India, particularly from Manusmriti. Golwalkar approved, rather praised, the genocide and inhuman massacre of Jews undertaken by Hitler as measure “to keep up the purity of the Race and its culture”. He termed Nazism as “race pride at its highest”, and wanted “Hindusthan to learn and profit by” it. (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 87-88) In contrast, the Mahatma's Hinduism stood for non-violence as a creed and even transcended nationalism, placing its faith in vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the entire world is one family).
Golwalkar in his essay, We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939), propounds what is nationalism, defines its enemies and finally, lays out the road map to achieve it—all three extensively quoting Western political scientists in support. In doing so, he is charting a path opposed to the one that the people of India chose in the course of the freedom struggle under the leadership of the Indian National Congress. To him, joining hands with Muslims, whom he describes as “old invaders and foes” of Hindus, isn't being national nor is it fighting for freedom. To call the platform where Hindus and Muslims joined hands for freedom as a “national” platform is “outlandish”. What would be achieved through such a platform through non-violence would not be “freedom”. These, according to him, were “wrong notions of democracy”. Golwalkar's path is that of war “at once with the Moslems on the one hand and Britain on the other”. (1939, p. 56)
Golwalkar's concept of nationalism was incomplete with merely geographical territory which was widely accepted by the freedom movement. The freedom movement led by the Congress had accepted that India was a nation in the making and all those who lived within the territory of India shared its common history and culture were Indian nationals even though they followed diverse religions, spoke diverse languages and followed diverse traditions and customs. The freedom movement gave the slogan of ‘unity in diversity' and the unity rested in the common history and common struggle for independence and on mutual respect for each other's religion, culture, language, customs and traditions. The diversity did pose some challenge but the challenge had to be overcome. For Golwalkar, nationalism has five essential factors fused into one indissoluble whole. The five factors were — geographical territory or country, race, religion, culture and language. (1939, p. 61)
The Hindu national, as opposed to the Indian national, had to belong to one religion, one culture, one language and one race. Those who did not belong to the Hindu ‘race', ‘culture', ‘language' and religion, were therefore not Hindu nationals. Golwalkar writes: “Our Race-spirit is a child of our Religion and [al]so with us[,] Culture is but a product of our all comprehensive Religion, a part of its body and not distinguishable from it.” (1939, p. 67) Therefore, freedom for Golwalkar and the Hindu nationalists did not mean independence from British rule and recognition of liberties of individuals. “Freedom” for Golwalkar meant pursuit of perpetuation of the Hindu race-spirit, religion, language and culture and enforcement of these factors on all individuals. This would entail a war with Muslims (and by implication, with Christians as well and all those who, according to them, do not belong to the Hindu race/nation).
It is this war with Muslims and Christians which is continuing through communal violence in Gujarat, Kandhamal, and several other big and small riots, attacks on prayer meetings of Christians, several instances of mob lynching, partisan response of the state to communal violence and lynching. Discrimination of minorities and attack on their cultural symbols, be it demolition of the Babri Masjid, changing names of places that represent or remind of the Mughal past, demand to disenfranchise the Muslims are all steps in the war.
Religion for Golwalkar is much more than just a relation between the individual and her creator. Religion encompasses, controls and determines every aspect of individual behaviour, actions and thoughts. Religion, culture and race-spirit are all fused into one. An individual simply submits to the race-spirit. Golwalkar writes: “Guided by this Religion in all walks of life, individual, social, political, the Race evolved a Culture, which despite the degenerating contact with the debased “civilizations” of the Mussalmans and the Europeans, for the last ten centuries, is still the noblest in the world.” (1939, p. 95) The Indian nationals belonging to other religions, whom he calls foreign elements, have the only one of the two option —“either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race. That is the only sound view on the minorities problem.” (1939, p. 104)
To conclude, One of the most revered figures of the Sangh—Golwalkar—who is always referred with suffix “Guruji” (leader, teacher, ideologue and philosopher) lays down that members belonging to the Hindu race/nation have to submit/conform to the race-spirit and non-Hindu foreign elements have to adopt or merge in the national (Hindu) race or live at the sweet will and mercy of the national race and expect no rights or privileges. The national race would be at war with the foreign elements and would learn from how Germany under Hitler treated their minorities (Jews during holocaust). Democracy is not a suitable political arrangement as it is Western in its origin, but more importantly, recognises equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their religion, gender, race, culture, caste, language, or place of birth. It recognises the fundamental rights of all citizens, right to life and that all individuals are born with the fundamental rights which are inalienable. The laws of the Hindu race were written by their ancestors, more particularly in Manusmriti and that needed to be enforced by the state.
Gandhiji's Approach
The Mahatma's approach is radically different. His idea of swaraj was incomplete without Hindu-Muslim unity and removal of untouchability. “Swaraj for India must be an impossible dream without an indissoluble union between the Hindus and the Muslims of India... It cannot be based upon mutual fear. It tmust be a partnership between equals...” (Young India: October 6, 1920) Religion itself for Gandhiji was neither fused with culture nor defining race or nationality, nor something that was to be enforced. Swaraj was freedom for everyone, “the smallest among us, to do as he likes without any physical interference with his liberty...” He wrote: “Christians and Jews in India are not foreigners, nor are Parsis. We must go out of our way to be friendly to them and to serve and help them above all, to protect them from harm from ourselves.” (Young India: November 24, 1921)
Gandhiji put the burden on Hindus to disprove through their conduct that they and Muslims are two nations. (Harijan: August 3, 1947) Quite contrary to Golwalkar and Sangh's ideology, according to Gandhiji, “Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bred here... Therefore, it belongs to Parsis, Beni-Israels, to Indian Christians, Muslims and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu Raj, it will be Indian Raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community, but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion... Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in politics.” (Harijan: September 8, 1946).
For Gandhiji, religion was not a source of law but source of morals. The soul of all religion is one, but is encased in a multitude of forms (Young India: September 18, 1924) Hindus and Muslims lived in peace among themselves during the Muslim rule (Young India: February 26, 1925) He regarded Islam to be a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism were (Young India: January 20, 1927).
From the above, it must be clear that the two approaches were completely different as chalk and cheese are. Either Vaidya is dishonest to give an impression that Gandhiji appreciated and respected the Sangh or Gandhiji was fool-hardy to believe in non-violence as a creed and religion as a source of moral behaviour, serving the poorest and most marginalised and at the same time appreciate the Sangh. The former seems to us to be a more appropriate conclusion. For Gandhiji, pursuit of truth was pursuit of God and all religions were true.
Vaidya uses Gandhiji and Gandhiji's popular appeal with the people of India even today to dishonestly seek legitimacy for the Sangh. Does the Sangh feel so insecure? One needs a lot of moral courage to be on the righteous path and to carry on the Mahatma's legacy. The Sangh may have patronage of the powers that be, but it has not inherited the Mahatma's legacy.
The author is the Director, Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.