Sanitising The Supremo: How RSS Is Trying to Rewrite its Own History One Step At a Time | Subhash Gatade

A cat drinks milk with closed eyes and thinks the world does not see
— A Sanskrit Subhashitam

I

Introduction

"Somebody has a bee in his bonnet.."

Taj Mahal as Tejo Mahaalay ?

It is now history how one P N Oak, a retiree from the Indian military, had petitioned the Supreme Court to rewrite the history of Taj Mahal as being built by a Hindu King during NDA’s first stint of power at the centre (Year 2000). Perhaps the then-conducive political atmosphere had prompted him to gain further legitimacy, but he was sadly mistaken. A two-member division bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the ‘misconceived’ petition with these remarks ‘

‘Somebody has a bee in his bonnet, hence this petition’. [1]

What is worth underlining is that such setbacks did not deter this gentleman from his ’mission’ to rewrite and propogate about India’s ’real history’ which he had been engaged in since 60s. [2]. Anyone conversant with Marathi can vouch how his writings had started appearing in the language magazines there, when the Hindutva Supremacist movement was still on the margins. For a section of critics, Oak was considered a Desi version of Erich von Däniken - the Swiss citizen who is author of many pseudoscientific books, - who was focussed on religion. [3]

Whereas all P N Oak’s claims like ‘Christianity and Islam being both derivatives of Hinduism’ or ’Like Taj Mahal, Catholic Vatican, Kaaba, Westminster Abbey were once Hindu temples to Shiva’ or ‘Vatican being originally a Vedic creation called Vatika and that the Papacy was also originally a Vedic Priesthood’ or his complete denial of Islamic architecture in India - could not find any takers in the mainstream, in fact were rejected in academia, they gathered a popular following in the Hindutva Right which had gathered new steam in 80s and 90s.

There were few dissenting voices within the Hindutva circles also - who called Oak’s popularity as a sign of ’gross immaturiy’ among Hindu activists - but such voices were in minority.

Belgian orientalist and Indologist Koenraad Elst- who is sympathetic to Hindutva -was one among them. Underlining Oak’s ‘lasting popularity’in NRI/PIO circles and debunking Oak’s varied ‘historical and linguistic theses’ regarding Taj Mahal, Red Fort and Vikramaditya he emphasised :

The popularity of PN Oak’s theses is a sign of gross immaturity among contemporary Hindu activists. It indicates confusion regarding the facts of religious conflict in Indian history, along with a narcissistic greed, a morbid desire to lay ludicrous ownership claims to all manner of precious objects produced by outsiders (as if Hindu Dharma’s genuine achievements weren’t enough to be proud of) [4]

As expected, notwithstanding this criticism, still there is no dip in the popularity of P N Oak or his ideas [5] On closer scrutiny you will find that many such claims by Hindutva people regarding monuments, structures built by Muslim rulers have their origins in Oak’s writings. Much after the highest court had rejected Oak petition about renaming Taj Mahal, a noted leader of the Hindutva fraternity - who once was a Member of Parliament also - repeated this ’theory. [6] One can recall that when Prof Y Sudershan Rao, was appointed as a Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research, (2015) he had himself admitted that he was associated with BISS ( Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Samiti), an outfit formed by Oak himself. [7]

P N Oak might be dead around two decades back but the zeal of the Hindutva Supremacist forces to correct "“biased and distorted versions of India’s history produced by the invaders and colonizers” is reaching ridiculous proportions so much so that they want to look for ’Shiv Ling in every mosque’ [8] as their own Supremo underlined sometime back.

We are also being sermonised that this ’Invader mindset is a threat to India’. [9]

II

Many Silences of Mohan Bhagwat

The rewriting spree has not left untouched RSS’s own history itself.

The biggest manifestation of this exercise is evident in the way we have before us a new look Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1888-1940) founder member of RSS and its first Supremo.

He is being called as ’‘born patriot’’, one amongst the ‘great revolutionaries who fought for India’s independence, ’’social reformer’ , ’maker of Modern India’ etc etc. disregarding the fact that all his life he focussed his attention to build Hindu Unity, to usher India into a Hindu Rashtra and never once gave a call to the organisation he founded with others - namely RSS - that it joins the anti colonial struggle. He did go to jail during the anti colonial struggle but not as a member of the RSS but as a member of Congress Party.

Many monographs, books have appeared and even revised editions of earlier publications - written by writers sympathetic to the Hindutva cause - are also before us which are trying to emphasise this new image, obliterating many inconvenient aspects of his tumultous life or maintaining tactical silences over them. The latest in series is the way he is being projected as a leader of the "jungle satyagraha" at Pusad, Maharashtra which was organised as part of the Civil Disobedience Movement led by Congress. [10]

What is noticeable that this ’rewriting’ of RSS history seem to begin at the beginning only.

Most such biographies mainly credit Dr Hedgewar for founding of RSS, [11] conveniently forgetting the fact that the meeting where it was decided to establish such an organisation ( held in Nagpur on Vijaya Dashmi Day) was attended by Dr B S Moonje, Dr L V Paranjpe, Dr B B Thalkar and Baburao Savarkar - Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s brother, [12] - all of them associated with Hindu Mahasabha. It is not difficult to understand why the Mahasabha leaders are not mentioned because the present RSS leaders fear that it will impact their attempts to project Hedgewar as a Great Leader above the rest.

Dr B S Moonje was Hedgewar’s mentor, who only ensured medical education to him in Calcutta and who had gone to visit Mussolini in Italy to learn from that experiments which as he mentioned were to be applied here for ’our institution Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). [13]

This process of refurbishing the image of the parent organisation and its leading lights has been on for quite sometime but it has achieved a new momentum since BJP has assumed reins of power under the leadership of Narendra Modi - Pracharak of the Organisation - more than a decade back.
Looking back, a programme organised by RSS - during the first tenure of Narendra Modi as a Prime Minister - [14] — the first of its kind in the entire history of the organisation- was one such significant step in that direction.

III

’Bhavishya Ka Bharat’

It was the name of the three day lecture series organised by RSS itself in the national capital where its Supremo Mohan Bhagwat was the key speakar . [15]

It was projected as the first of its kind event - an outreach programme - to explain the Sangh’s perspective on different issues of concern and clear misconceptions about its ideology and working and supposedly to achieve this people from all walks of life were invited to it.

The symbolism was not lost on people, when it was reported that Sangh Supremo was reaching Delhi directly from US - where he had gone to attend the 125th anniverary celebrations of Swami Vivekanand’s historic speech at Chicago

It is on record how the three day lecture series on ‘Future of India’ was beamed live on many TV channels and there was a competition of sorts among commentators to sing paens to ‘changed RSS’. Many a liberals were also enamoured about this Hindutva of a different kind where the present Supremo appreciated the role of Congress in independence struggle or even quoted Sir Sayyad Ahmad’s speech when he was supposedly felicitated by Arya Sam. Perhaps for them it was reassuring that Constitution received praise in his speech as well or in the same breath he emphasised that “Hindu Rashtra does not mean it has no place for Muslims”.

“We respect the Indian Constitution. A lot of thought has gone into making it. It was done through consensus. The Sangh has never gone against the Constitution.”

Interestingly Bhagwat talked positively about Indian Constitution, appreciated that lot of thought and effort has gone into making it and how the whole work was ‘done through consensus’ and even underlined that his organisation now respects it

All sounded really well.

A clarification of sorts was definitely needed on Bhagwat’s part explaining when did the RSS started ‘respecting the constitution’ because merely few months back he himself had “[p]itched for changes in the Constitution and jurisprudence in line with the value systems of the country” while addressing Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta (Advocates) Parishad in Hyderabad. [16]

One could also have asked him how the whole idea of Hindu Rashtra, which is premised on the superiority of a particular faith people, is compatible with Constitution - which guarantees equality of rights as well as opportunities to everyone irrespective of her/his faith, sex, caste, region, race. Perhaps a subsidiary question could have been asked what place ‘..[d]oes Muslims and other minorities have in the Hindu Rashtra’.

Would it be similar to the position of religious minorities under a Nizam-e-Mustafa or a Islamic Nation or it would be different ? Whether the minorities would continue to live ‘at the benevolence of majority Hindus’ - as claimed by Bhagwat’s predecessors - in a formal hierarchical relationship, basically as secondary citizens or they would have equal claims on the nation.Whether they would be still be declared ‘internal enemies’ as formulated by the second supremo Golwalkar in his well-known monograph ‘Bunch of Thoughts.’

Interestingly, Bhagwat in his speech was quite emphatic about RSS being a ‘democratic organisation’ which supposedly does not wield the “remote control” over any of its offshoots, nor does it aspire for “domination”, [17]

It is a different matter that the RSS is still not ready to accept around half of population - namely women - as equal members making it basically an organisation of Hindu males. It is now history how one Laxmi Kelkar [18] from Nagpur itself - a contemporary of Dr Hedgewar himself - who was impressed with the work of Hindu Unity the organisation was engaged in had approached him and requested / suggested to him that women be also allowed to join the organisation, a proposal which was summarily rejected by Dr Hedgewar who asked her to organise women separately. [19], [20]

Last but not the least what surprised many - who were present in that ’historic outreach programme - and also analysts that Mohan Bhagwat maintained near silence over two senior figures from the RSS itself, namely Golwalkar, the second supremo of RSS, (21 June 1940 – 5 June 1973) and Balasaheb Deoras, the third Supremo of the organisation. (5 June 1973 – March 1994)

What must have prompted him not to even share their names and their work - when he was quite liberal with mentioning lot many names outside the ’Parivar’

A correspondent/analyst with a leading English daily even counted how Bhagwat “invoked 32 different personalities as many as 102 times in the first two days of his lectures to show how the Sangh incorporates the best of diverse sources.” [21] Whereas RSS founder “.K B Hedgewar got the maximum number of mentions (45)” and Bhagwat even “referred to political figures like Mahatma Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, Subhash Chandra Bose, Veer Savarkar, M N Roy, AMU founder Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and even little known Sangh figures along with Buddha, Zarathustra, Ramakrishna Paramhans, DayanandSaraswati, Vivekananda, Guru Nanak and Shivaji” [22]

According to reports Golwalkar received a mention on the third day of the gathering during question and answer session. The situation of Balasaheb Deoras - the third Supremo of the Organisation - was even more pathetic, he did not even receive a mention.

It may appear incomprehensible that present Supreme leader of the organisation was sharing his thoughts on ’Future of India’, trying to convince people - not connected with the organisation in any way - about its ’changed nature’, focussing on the founder member and first Supremo, taking care to mention various other people - who were not associated with the organisation or have had maintained a very critical opinion about its own activities but shying away from merely mentioning two of its leading lights - who had guided/ led the organisation for around half a century .

Whether the silence was inadvertent or it was a conscious decision by the Parivar.

III

Why Sangh Parivar Wants to ’Disremember’ Golwalkar ?

It is now history that Golwalkar was nominated by Hedgewar himself to lead the organisation after his death.

Most of the students of RSS rather overlook the fact that Golwalkar formally and finally joined the Organisation in 1937 only, after passing through a zig zag journey. His biographers also tell us that he was also keen to join Ramkrishna Ashram and a become a Sanyasi. He had also received Diksha from his guru ( 1937) and thus was initiated into the order. He had change of mind and left it soon.

It was under Hedgewar’s guidance and the perspective provided by him that Golwalkar - the new recruit to the organisation - wrote his first and much controversial book ’We and Our Nationhood Defined’ ( 1938-39). Dr Hedgewar took keen interest in its publication and even asked his personal friend Advocate Ane - a leader of the Congress Party - to write a foreword to the book. Within the Sangh circles Golwalkar Guruji - as he is popularly known - is called the ‘’prime architect” of the organisation and is known for the organisation’s unique approach of creating a network of affiliated (anushangik) organisations reaching out to different sections of the society.

Balasaheb Deoras - who had joined the organisation before Golwalkar and who had emerged as an organiation man during his young days only - is remembered for involving RSS more deeply in social activism than any other RSS Supremos and widening its mass base, which he could only take up after the death of Golwalkar.

Looking at the fact that RSS is a very disciplined organisation, it would be height of innocence to think that it was Mohan Bhagwat’s individual decision to formally ’marginalise’ the two stalwarts. It looks more probable that a consensus seems to have emerged among the top leaders of RSS that the more one talks about Golwalkar or Deoras, the more it will be difficult to present Dr Hedgewar in larger than life image.

The birth anniversary of Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar - held a year later after this ’historic outreach’ programme organised by RSS could be seen as a marker of the changed scenario within the larger ’Parivar’ itself.
It had largely gone unnoticed.

Barring a stray article [23] by a second-rung leader of the saffron party in a national daily, none from the top hierarchy deemed it even necessary to remember the second chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who followed the organisation’s founder, KB Hedgewar.

Interestingly, while Twitter-savvy Prime Minister Narendra Modi found time to tweet about his litti chokha conquest at Hunar Haat in Delhi, [24] there was not a single line about Golwalkar on his timeline that day. It appeared a bit strange because in his book titled ‘Jyotipunj’ on the “greatest social workers” who “burnt their lives to glow the Motherland”, Modi had devoted forty pages to Golwalkar.

“The life of Golwalkar Guruji is a fine example of dedication. Guruji, possessed all those qualities which are expected of an individual who lives for his goal—patience, determination, perseverance,”

Was Modi’s or his senior colleagues’ silence inadvertent, or deliberate?
It is rather difficult to believe that they collectively failed to remember the longest-serving (1940-1973) RSS supremo inadvertently.

It was a transfer scence from the days when his hundredth birth anniversary was celebrated. (2006)

A massive campaign had then been launched where “Hindu rallies” were organised at the block level all over the country. Seminars, symposia and lectures took place “to propagate the ideas and vision of Shri Guruji,” the RSS-mouthpiece Organiser had said.

It was a phase when the “glorification of Golwalkar” made him “stand a little above the human level,” according to Prof GP Deshpande, who wrote as much in an article published in the EPW[25] at the time. Deshpande was referring to the addition of “Shri” to Golwalkar’s name, a title which made him appear “nearly sacred, an avatar of sorts”.

“Within the Maharashtrian context this has an additional meaning or signification. Mystic gurus are often referred to as ‘shreeguruji’. You can see thus that there has been rather subtle glorification of Golwalkar, the new appellation making him stand a little above the human level.”

The three day programme was a firm indication that this slow ‘invisibilisation’ of Shree Guruji, was not an individual decision. it was not just Bhagwat, but all the leading lights of the Parivar had second thoughts about invoking his name in public. This had ended on the third day of the event, during the question-answer session, when it was claimed that the RSS wanted to present a revised version of Golwalkar’s controversial book, Bunch of Thoughts, which talks of Muslims, Christians and Communists as ‘internal threats’, thus vindicating their collective discomfort with his name.
The chapter on ‘Internal Threats’, which has three subsections titled Muslims, Christians and Communists, begins like this:

“It has been the tragic lesson of the history of many a country in the world that the hostile elements within the country pose a far greater menace to national security that aggressors from outside. Unfortunately, this first lesson of national security has been the one thing which has been consistently ignored in our country ever since the British left this land (sic).”

The book has also made equally controversial statements on the Indian Constitution as well as on affirmative action and it also denigrates the independence struggle and its heroic participants. Bhagwat knew very well that for a new-look RSS, anti-human solutions offered by Golwalkar - although they were the manifestation of the organisation’s collective wisdom- would prove costly.

The best route before RSS was to ’isolate’ the person who articulated it. It is also helped by the fact that Dr Hedgewar has not written much and he could be easily shielded from critical scrutiny.

The explanation offered by Bhagwat to bring out a new edition of the book was definitely not very convincing and showed his dilemma [26] :

As far as Bunch of Thoughts goes, every statement carries a context of time and circumstance… his enduring thoughts are in a popular edition in which we have removed all remarks that have a temporary context and retained those that will endure for ages. You won’t find the (‘Muslim is an enemy’) remark there.

According to an analyst, it is similar to saying that a sanitised version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, where direct references to targeting Jews could be removed, is possible, to present a more ’palatable and lovable Hitler.’
Thus, it is not difficult to comprehend why the Sangh wanted to distance itself from Golwalkar in public.

If we try to read between the lines it would mean - distance from Golwalkar in public so that Dr Hedgewar, the key ideologue and organiser of the formation and Golwalkar’s real teacher could be saved from questioning and further scrutiny.

IV

Guru of Hate !

A cursory glance at the trajectory of Golwalkar’s life makes it further clear.

Remember, Golwalkar’s life spanned a period in world history which was unique in many ways. It was a period when Nazism and Fascism were ready to swamp Western Europe, a period when national liberation struggles in many of the third-world countries were nearing culmination. A time when great experiments of Socialist construction undertaken in Soviet Russia coupled with the rising tide of communist-led militant movements, were proving to be the era’s defining characteristics.

Retrospectively, one can say that it was a juncture in world history when the old world of feudalism and colonialism was crumbling and a new world was emerging. It would not be incorrect to say that due to his peculiar Weltanschauung, (World view) which yearned for building a Hindu Rashtra based on the ‘glorious traditions of Hinduism’, and which looked towards Muslims as a bigger adversary vis-a-vis British colonialism and which sought inspiration from the experiments in ‘social engineering’ undertaken by Nazism-Fascism, he remained oblivious to the world / humanity taking a turn for the better.

As already mentioned the first of Golwalkar’s theoretical contributions for Hindutva’s cause appeared as a pamphlet titled We or Our Nationhood Defined (1938). It was so straightforward in its appreciation for the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Jews by Hitler and such an unashamed proponent of the submergence of ‘foreign races’ in the Hindu race that later-day RSS leaders tried their best to create the impression that the booklet was not written by Golwalkar but that it was a mere translation of Rashtra Meemansa by Babarao Savarkar.

It is a different matter that in his preface to We or Our Nationhood Defined, dated 22 March 1939, Golwalkar himself described Rashtra Meemansa as “one of my chief sources of inspiration and help”. The American scholar Jean A Curran, (a CIA man basically) who did a full-length study on the RSS in the early fifties, wrote a book sympathetic to the Sangh titled Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics: A Study of the RSS (1951). In it, he confirmed that Golwalkar’s 77-page book was written in 1938 when he was appointed RSS General Secretary by Hedgewar, and called it the RSS’ “Bible”.

A third arena where Golwalkar proved to be much behind his times was his love for Manusmriti’s edicts. When leaders of newly-independent India were struggling to have a Constitution which was premised on the inviolability of individual rights with special provisions of positive discrimination for millions of Indians who had been denied any human rights quoting religious scriptures, it was Golwalkar again who espoused the same Manusmriti as independent India’s constitution. On 30 November 1949, the Organiser complained:

“But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

When attempts were made under the stewardship of Ambedkar and Nehru in the late forties to give limited rights to Hindu women in property and inheritance through the passage of the Hindu Code Bill, Golwalkar and his associates had no qualms in launching a movement opposing this historic empowerment of Hindu women which was to take place for the first time in history. His contention was simple: This step is inimical to Hindu traditions and culture.

One can go on enumerating instances highlighting the ideological limitations of the Golwalkarian project which acted as a hindrance to the building of modern India. It is clear to any impartial observer that the way he tried to divide a wedge between the broad unity of the Indian people on the basis of religion, the way he lauded experiments in ethnic cleansing in Western Europe and the way he glorified Manusmriti till his end, demonstrate that his project was essentially inimical to the cause of social harmony.

It is a different matter that despite espousing a sectarian agenda the Golwalkarian project of remaking of Indian society continued to move ahead, albeit slowly. The “success” of the Golwalkarian project in winning over a chunk of our society to its side, definitely demands a separate treatment beyond this note.

Not that the Sangh had second thoughts about his vision, they rather continued to show their adherence to it by organising the “successful experiment” in Gujarat in 2002 or how the CAA-NPR-NRC triad represented the culmination of Golwalkar and RSS’ vision. [27] The only problem they have is the presentation of the vision. Looking at his controversial pronouncements from time to time on various issues of social-political concern and his transcending of the ‘calculated ambiguity’ on many occasions—a hallmark of the organisation which he built—it is not surprising that he has always come under a barrage of attacks from all those who opposed the Hindutva project.

The best strategy seems to be to ’disremember him in public’ and fully implement his essence in practice.

V

Unpacking Selective Amnesia around Deoras

Golwalkar’s deletion by Bhagwat was ‘understandable’.

We were witness to a similar discomfirt among RSS circles during his birth anniversary celebrations in 2006 as well, a period during which on the one hand they were lauding Golwalkar for his ‘contributions’ but were also ‘simultaneously engaged in surreptiously sanitising him and presenting him before the guillible public under a more acceptable, humane face. [28]

But why Deoras was also dropped.

Why he was not found even worthy of a single mention in this ’historic programme’. His deletion appeared more surprising because as opposed to his predecessor, he had remained non-controversial, had always tried to present a more gentle face of the organisation.

Critics of the exclucivist RSS also admit that if Golwalkar was a key figure in putting it on solid organisational and ideological level, Deoras helped spread the RSS idea among those sections who had been left out earlier. Within Sangh circles he is known more for widening the social base of RSS and reaching out to the socially deprived sections of the Hindu religion.

The way Golwalkar’s speech at a conference of district organisers in 1954 is considered a ‘milestone’ in revealing his leadership in the - organisational and ideological level - in the RSS history, [29] similarly Deoras’s speech on ‘Social Equality and Hindu Consciousness’ in Pune in May 1974 is considered a ‘watershed moment’ in Sangh’s history. During his speech instead of exteriorising the problem of Hindu disunity - which blamed outsiders namely Muslims and Christians for the state of affairs - he had emphasised how ‘social inequality amongst us has been a reason for our downfall. Fissiparous tendencies like caste and sub-caste rivalries and untouchability have all been the manifestation of this social inequality.’ [30]

Anyone could note the difference between how Golwalkar and Deoras looked at the cause of Hindu disunity.

It would not be incorrect to say that Golwalkar practised a more ’exclucivist’ path to Hindu Unity keeping the caste structure and its attendant exclusions intact whereas Deoras practised a more ’inclusionist’ path to Hindu Unity.
Merely four years before his death Golwalkar’s interview to a Marathi newspaper ‘Navakal’ (1969) had created a big controversy in Maharashtra because in this interview Golwalkar had once again praised Manusmriti. As already discussed Golwalkar had special fascination for Manusmriti’s edicts.

Not that Deoras was opposed to Manusmriti, one can look at his biography and find out that he never condemned it or questioned it, nor he talked of annihilating caste, but basically condemned untouchability and emphasised that it should not be practised, otherwise the goal of Hindu Unity will not be achieved.

One of the first public demonstration of the changing ambience in the RSS, could be had from Deoras’s visit to Deekshabhoomi (1973), the place where Ambedkar had embraced Buddhism with lakhs of his followers (1956), the same Ambedkar who had publicly burnt Manusmriti (25th Dec 1927) which upheld caste system.

Remember it was Deoras’s prodding only that RSS and its then political affiliate Bharatiya Jan Sangh had joined the historic Bihar movement ( popularly known as JP movement) which later unfolded in giving a short term at the centre for the Jan Sangh, in a coalition,

Why Deoras did not find a place in the list of 32 personalities ?

Was it because Bhagwat wanted to avoid discussion on the not so glorious role of the Sangh Parivar and its affiliated organisations during Emergency when Debras was the Supreme Leader ? A role which is at variance with the official history which portrays RSS as the great uncompromising fighter of that period.

The imposition of Emergency (1975) was really a very ‘dark chapter’ of Indian democracy, when thousands of people from different walks of life, were jailed. Today, it can appear incomprehensible to a layperson that while the activists of the Sangh Parivar were in jail during Emergency regime, its leaders in the words of Tapan Basu et al “revealed a curious duality”.The authors in their early ninety monograph”Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags “ (Orient Longman, 1993) explain the way the top leaders of the RSS reacted.

‘RSS attitudes under the emergency revealed a curious duality, reminiscent of the 1948-49 days. “ While the RSS was banned and Sangh Supremo Deoras was put behind bars , he like Golwalkar in 1948-49, “..quickly opened channels of communication with the Emergeny regime, writing fairly ingratiating letters to Indira Gandhi in August and November 1975 that promised cooperation for lifting a ban (on RSS). He tried to persuade Vinoba Bhave to mediate between the RSS and the government, and sought also the good offices of Sanjay Gandhi. (p.52)”

Bapurao Moghe, in an article in the Sangh mouthpiece Panchajanya (July 24, 1977) had also acknowledged that such letters had been written by the Sangh supremo. Lawyer and political commentator A.G.Noorani in his book ‘The RSS and the BJP’ (Leftword, 2000,Delhi) tells us that these letters “.[w]ere placed on the table of the Maharashtra Assembly on October 18, 1977.” He adds ,” He wrote to the prime minister, first, on august 22 congratulating her on her speech on Independence day (‘balanced and befitting to the occasion’) and begged her to lift the ban on the RSS. He next congratulated her ‘as five judges of the Supreme Court have upheld the validity of your election’ (November 11, 1975).’(P. 31) It may be added that though Ms Indira Gandhi had won the case but it was not on the basis of merit but by a constitutional amendment with retrospective effect. In these letters he repeated his plea for the release of RSS detenus and lifting the ban on the organisation. He also underlined that the RSS ‘has no connection with the movements’ in Bihar and Gujarat. Deoras ends these letters by offering the services of ‘lakhs of RSS volunteers....for the national upliftment (Government as well as non government

A point which may skip attention is that in these letters is that Sangh Supremo Deoras was concerned with the RSS alone. And to save his organisation from the onslaught of an autocratic regime he was ready to declare that ‘if the ban is lifted his men would be at the service of the regime.’ Neither does he asks for the release of all detenues nor does he asks her to lift emergency. It seems the only problem which the RSS supremo had was that his organisation was banned otherwise whatever the Indira regime was doing was good for him.

When Ms Indira Gandhi refused to budge from her stand, the Sangh supremo shot another letter ( July 16, 1976) in which he congratulated her for ‘your efforts to improve relations with Pakistan and China’ and also declared that she has been given some wrong information about his organisation.

It needs investigation to see whether some sort of agreement was reached between Deoras and Ms Indira Gandhi or not through the mediatory efforts of the likes of Vinoba Bhave but one thing is clear that the RSS workers were instructed from the top that they give an undertaking for their release from jail. The undertaking went like this

“ Shri ..detenu class.. prison agrees on affidavit that in case of my release I shall not do anything, which is detrimental to intenal security and public peace... I shall not do anything prejudicial to the present emergency.”[31]

According to leading Socialist activist Baba Adhav, Deoras had himself acknowledged at a press conference in Delhi that he had written two letters to Indira Gandhi. Madhu Limaye, a towering figure of the socialist movement spent 19 months in three jails which were in RSS areas and knew of the RSS detenues letters of apology.

It is understandable that the RSS which has built its world view (weltanshauung) around the twin concepts of ‘bravery and cowardice’ would like to forget this past episode, when instead of demonstrating uncompromising defiance it had preferred to cringe.

Bhagwat very well knew that the momemt Deoras found mention, any inquisitive participant could have asked him to explain his behaviour during emergency and that could have opened a pandora’s box.

People would have posed what is the difference between a Savarkar sending mercy petitions to the British government for early release from Andaman, Golwalkar deciding to abide by conditions put forth by British regime [32] and a Deoras deciding to prostrate before an authoritarian regime and asking his people to follow him without any question and writing letters to Ms Indira Gandhi, to lift the ban on his organisation, so that he and his men could join the the work of ’nation building’ undertaken by her.

VI

When Hedgewar organised a seven day study class to ’save’ Balasaheb Deoras from Bhagat Singh ?

RSS’s prostrating before Indira Gandhi regime during emergency is definitely a ’bad story’ for the Parivar but perhaps this does not explain why his name did not figure in the important interaction of Mohan Bhagwat with people during his outreach programme.

Perhaps it has mainly to do with the way RSS kept itself aloof from the anti colonial mass struggle and how Deoras emerges as a man who had never felt comfortable with this stand and was frank enough to admit his differences with the Supremo.

An anecdote related to Balasaheb Deoras’s young days - which he has himself narrated - exposes the great hiatus between what RSS claimed and what it did actually regarding the struggle. What is remarkable that this has been published by people associated with RSS only

" 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 courageious. 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 adventourous 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 [33]

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

Remember it was not for the first time that Deoras had expressed his diffrences with 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 how,

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. [34]

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 Veer Savarkar and 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. [35] 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 the youth to join the imperial British army with the slogan ‘militarise Hinduism and Hinduise [the] nation’. [36]

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 Dr Kesha Baliram 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.

VII

’Hero Hedgewar’

Union Ministry of Culture last year declared a new museum would be built at Pusad, in the Yavatmal district of Maharashtra, in memory of the 1930 Jungle Satyagraha. Reportedly, it will be dedicated to Dr KB Hedgewar, ‘who led the agitation at Pusad as part of the civil disobedience movement’. [37]

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 the Congress party was in power, it neglected the real heroes of the independence struggle, which the Modi-led BJP government is out to correct with its Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsava.

But facts speak to the contrary. The Jungle Satyagraha [38] 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 the 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 [39] 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’,[40] published in 2021, edited by HV Seshadri and published by the Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan.

NH Palkar, who wrote Hedgewar’s biography in Marathi which carries an introduction by MS Golwalkar, [41] 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 the 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. Consequently he engaged himself all his life to break emergent Hindu-Muslim unity againt the Britishers. Hedgewar’s involvement in the Jungle Satyagraha was not for the noble aim of opposing the British, nor meant to express his anger against colonial rule. It was to establish contact with youth from the region and “bring them in the RSS fold”.

Whatever the votaries of the 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’.

We must put all these facts before the public; they are readily available in the public domain and make it clear that the proposed museum is dedicated to a fictional idea. Such a made-up past would not relive history but silence the real leaders of the movement and effectively make them disappear. Citizens should tell the government that if the museum on Hedgewar is to come up, it should not come at the expense of the public exchequer.

People who yearn to turn India into a Hindu rashtra want to sanitise their founders as great heroes. Their attempts remind of what the third RSS supremo Balasaheb 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 28 June 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.

Notes and References

[1] https://kafila.online/2017/10/20/taj-mahal-as-tej-mahal-once-again-there-is-a-bee-in-the-bonnett/
[2] https://www.pnoak.org/home-page/books/
[3] That writing as careless as Däniken’s, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of Däniken.
—Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed
[4] http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2010/06/incurable-hindu-fondness-for-pn-oak.html
[5] https://scroll.in/article/669435/five-things-hindutva-historians-are-obsessed-with ; https://kashmirobserver.net/2014/08/01/idiocy-as-scholarship/ ;
[6] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/vinay-katiyar-taj-mahal-tejo-mahalaya-temple-supreme-court-bee-in-bonnet-theory-asi-1066984-2017-10-18
[7] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RSS-man-will-head-historical-research-body/articleshow/37673645.cms
[8] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rss-chief-why-look-for-shivling-in-every-mosque/articleshow/91971714.cms
[9] https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/not-about-religion-rss-expresses-firm-view-amid-aurangzeb-row-invader-mindset-is-threat-to-india-11742713833084.html
[10] https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/maharashtra-museum-to-be-set-up-in-memory-of-1930-jungle-satyagraha/cid/1848763
[11] ....[h]e established the RSS in 1925. He founded the Sangh in a remote, barren and forgotten part of Nagpur called Mohitewada...Preface, Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar - by Rakesh Sinha, Publications Division, Government of India
[12] Page 69, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, D R Goyal, Radha Prakashan, Delhi, Second edition, 2000 ; Page 16, Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags, Tapan Basu, Pradip Datta et al. Orient Longman, 1993
[13] Page 69, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, D R Goyal, Radha Prakashan, Delhi, Second edition, 2000 ; Page 16, Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags, Tapan Basu, Pradip Datta et al. Orient Longman, 1993
[14] https://www.newsclick.in/RSS-Military-School-Uttar-Pradesh-Hindutva ; https://www.countercurrents.org/gatade100312.htm; https://www.epw.in/journal/2000/04/special-articles/hindutvas-foreign-tie-1930s.html; ’Hindutva’s Foreign Ties Ups - Marzia Casolari, https://archive.org/details/marzia-casolari-hindutva-tie-up-with-fas
[15] https://www.archivesofrss.org/books/BKB.pdf
[16] https://www.archivesofrss.org/books/Future%20Bharat.pdf
[17] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/amend-constitution-align-it-to-indian-value-system-rss-chief/articleshow/60471393.c
[18] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-star-studded-rss-meet-today-mohan-bhagwat-to-speak-on-future-of-bharat/story-nPjOQDE2EOQcRbkBrJAdzO.htm
[19 https://www.etvbharat.com/english/bharat/bharat-news/laxmibai-kelker/na20191008070821740
[20] https://scroll.in/article/821360/eighty-years-on-the-rss-womens-wing-has-not-moved-beyond-seeing-the-woman-as-mother ;
[21] https://scroll.in/article/821360/eighty-years-on-the-rss-womens-wing-has-not-moved-beyond-seeing-the-woman-as-mother ;
[22] https://scroll.in/article/821360/eighty-years-on-the-rss-womens-wing-has-not-moved-beyond-seeing-the-woman-as-mother ;
[23] As an aside it can be mentioned here that RSS thus looks similar to Muslim Brotherhood (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Muslim-Brotherhood) founded by one Hasan Al Banna in Egypt ( 1928) which has also formed a separate ‘Sisters Division’ and has never accomodated a single women in its organisational structure. (https://carnegieendowment.org/files/women_egypt_muslim_brotherhood.pdf ;https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2383623/bary_2015.pdf?sequence=6
[24] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/mohan-bhagwats-silence-on-madhav-sadasiva-golwalkar-telling-edits-anti-muslim-remark-5365537/
[25] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/m-s-golwalkar-guruji-rss-6272945/
[26] https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
[27] https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
[28] https://www.epw.in/journal/2006/12/letters-and-politics-life-columns/occasion-rss.html
[29] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/mohan-bhagwats-silence-on-madhav-sadasiva-golwalkar-telling-edits-anti-muslim-remark-5365537
[30] https://thewire.in/politics/sangh-parivar-golwalkar-rss-caa-npr-nrc
[31] https://www.countercurrents.org/comm-gatade230206.htm
[32] Page 32, Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags, Tapan Basu, Pradip Datta et al. Orient Longman, 1993
[33] http://www.hvk.org/specialarticles/sehc/sehc.html
[34] Sanghachi Dhongbaji, Baba Adhav, Pune,1977
[35] http://www.aisa.in/the-truth-of-rss-in-its-own-words
[36] Smriti Kan, A compilation of anedotes from highly respected Dr Hedgewar’s life, RSS Prakashan Vighag, Nagpur, - translated into English by SG
[37] https://www.news18.com/news/india/the-rise-and-rise-of-balasaheb-deoras-who-took-rss-closer-to-power-and-politics-2116775.html
[38] http://www.sacw.net/article5096.html
[39] https://thewire.in/history/hindutva-vigilante-killers-freedom-fighters
[40] https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/maharashtra-museum-to-be-set-up-in-memory-of-1930-jungle-satyagraha/cid/1848763
[41] https://www.newsclick.in/Hindutva-Unending-Search-Imaginary-Past
[42] https://www.newsclick.in/Gandhi-Salt-Satyagraha-Brought-India-Together
[43]. https://www.newsclick.in/rss-blazing-out-shadows
[44] https://www.newsclick.in/Modi-Sangh-Parivar-Want-Disremember-Golwalkar