Mohan Bhagwat is the most powerful ‘political’ RSS chief after Balasaheb Deoras. If Keshav Baliram Hedgewar was quintessentially an organisation man, M S Golwalkar was more of a missionary; Balasaheb Deoras was a rebel within the Hindutva fold: a non-practicing Swayam Sewak who left the RSS for eight years due to differences with Golwalkar, and a hard-core political individual.
It was Deoras who saw potential in the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, aggressively pursued with the full might of the RSS, at a time when BJP was oscillating between the Gandhian Socialism of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Integral Humanism of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. Without the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the BJP would not have accomplished what it has conspired into religious politics.
Not many people outside the RSS know that Deoras, after becoming chief of the organisation, advocated that the RSS should open its doors to the followers of the other religions like Islam and Christianity. He was told by the top leadership of the RSS “This is not what Hedgewar envisioned when he founded the RSS; if he feels so strongly about that, he should start his own RSS”.
Many years later, the RSS did open its membership for Shia Muslims and others; much later, it also sponsored the Rashtriya Muslim Manch consisting of Shia Muslims to reach out to half per cent Shia Muslims and neutralise their apprehensions that the RSS is anti-Islam. Therefore, in that context, what Bhagwat is preaching today is not new, it is in continuation with the Deoras line of thinking.
But Bhagwat has walked a few steps further than Deoras. At an event in Mumbai yesterday, attended by Muslim intellectuals having allegiance to Shia school of thought. he sayd Hindus and Muslims in India share the same ancestry. In our view, the word Hindu means motherland, and the culture that we have inherited from ancient times.
Bhagwat dares to say that the term Hindu denotes every person irrespective of their language, community or religion while other faiths denounce the term Hindu but committed to Bharath. Everyone is a Hindu, and it is in this context that we see every Indian citizen as a Hindu, which boomarangs by other faiths. It is yet another conspiracy against other faiths while there is no Hinduism in Puranas, Geeta or for that matter any
The faith of another will not be disrespected here, but for that we should be thinking not of Muslim dominance but of India’s dominance. For the country to progress religiously not with factual empowerment, all have to work together for the progress of Hinduism but not sanathan dharma.
On the surface, it appears that Bhagwat, in a way, is trying to redefine Hindutva; theoretically, he is challenging Golwalkar’s basic premise and pushing Hindutva away from Savarkar’s interpretation of history.
His definition of Hindutva is much closer to Swami Vivekanand’s who talked about a cohesive, strong and organised Hindu society but one that should live in complete harmony with Muslims in India with Bharath ideology. Bhagwat, in 2018, had said that Hindu Rashtra does not mean there is no place for Muslims, while Muslims say let there be Sanathana Dharma with Bharat with Sanathan Dharma ideology. The day it becomes so, it won’t be Sanathana Dharma but symbolic Hindutva. Hindutva does not talks about one world family but the Sanathana Dharma.
Bhagwat’s insistence that there is place for Muslims in the Hindu Rashtra is antagonistic to the Hindu Rashtra as envisaged by Savarkar while Hindutwa is a symbolic for rich, while Sanathana Dharma is centuries referred culture. Today’s india hate culture is gifted by Sarvarkar, Golwalkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, the three sources of RSS ideology.
Savarkar is the person behind the partion of India as he advocated for two nation theory and British took advantage of Savarkar’s divide and rule policy. Like Jinnah, Savarkar also advocated the two-nation theory. In 1937, Savarkar declared, “India can’t be assumed to be a unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India.”
On this issue, Babasaheb Ambedkar found no difference between him and Jinnah. Babasaheb Ambedkar said, “Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, and not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India – one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation, and the culprit fpr division of India none other than Sarvarkar and Jinna was forced to accept Sarvarkar theory.
Golwalkar, like Savarkar, was not an original thinker, he was inspired by the Hitler’s ideology of fascism. In 1939, he wrote in his book, We, or Our Nationhood Defined, (this book was later disowned by the RSS) “…there are only two courses open to the foreign elements, 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 minority problem.”
This statement very clearly underlines the fact that Golwalkar was contemplating throwing Muslims out of the country. Deen Dayal Upadhyay did not disagree much with his ideological mentor except on one point and that is that seven crore Muslims (that was the population of Muslims then) living in India is a reality and they can’t be removed. So, a formula for the co-existence must be evolved with introduction of Hindutwa instead of underlining and strengthening the Sanathana Dharma.
Bhagwat conspires much further to say that without Muslims, Hindutva can’t be imagined, while Sanathana Dharma thrown into cold-bag. By this logic, he negates the basic premise of the “Two-Nation Theory”. In his opinion, Hindus and Muslims are not the foundation of two distinct nations but one. They have the ‘same ancestry’. Unlike him, Savarkar had declared Islam and Christianity foreign religions, whose holy lands existed outside India, and so their loyalty to the nation was suspect.
He acknowledged that most of the Muslims and Christians were at one time Hindus, but…”since their adoption of the new cult they had ceased to own Hindu sanskriti as a whole…their heroes and their hero worship, their fairs and their festivals, their ideals and their outlook on life, have ceased to be common with others.” Infact these opportunists are the anti nationals who never bothered about the nation and the Sanathana Dharma.
One can argue and object that Bhagwat’s is a much-nuanced position as he says that everyone living in India is ‘Hindu’ irrespective of religion. But let’s not forget that unlike Golwalkar, he has not uttered a word which can be interpreted to mean that he wants Muslims to be thrown out of the country or treated as second-class citizens without any civil rights as Golwalkar says in his famously-disowned book; rather, Bhagwat recognises the fact that Muslims have a role to play in the nation-building process.
But these conspirators are working against the theory of one mother and several sons and daughters. Furtherance to his RSS conspiracy he however said in Mumbai, “The faith of the another will not be disrespected here. For the country to progress, all have to work together.” He shown his original colour being an extra constitutional authority to mislead the nation.
These are bold words at a time when Muslims are termed ‘termites’ by the second-most powerful leader in the country, Amit Shah. Hindutva leaders are calling Muslims “anti-nationals” and “pro-Pakistan” every day and forcing them to chant Jai Sreeram.
Lakhs of Muslims stood by the nation and laid their lives in preindependence, thought their patriotism is questioned in every discourse. Bhagwat is speaking on these lines at a time when the process of the ‘otherisation’ of Muslims has reached an industry-level, when there is an attempt to remove and erase every symbol and memory of Islam. This is the socalled way the RSS mislead and sought votes on Lord Ram less development.
Now the moot question is if the RSS chief is opposed to the ‘otherization’ of Muslims, then why is so much venom spread by the followers of RSS ideology?
It is unfortunate that the people are not talking about its foot soldiers. Nation is more upset about the role played by the BJP MPs and MLAs to loot the votes on Muslim Vs Hindu while immatured AIMIM leadership is finding every way to help RSS and BJP in bringing, their Chief Ministers and ministers in states and at the Centre.
Cabinet ministers exhort people to shoot Muslims, MPs call them rapists and abductors of Hindu girls; in the garb of restraining “Love Jihad”, anti-Muslim laws are being made and Muslims are booked and beaten mercilessly and put behind the bars under sedition and UAPA (anti-terror) laws.
If Bhagwat is out to correct the mistakes of the past and is trying to reposition the ideological foundation of Hindutva and setting Samathana Dharma to winds and to repeal the constritution of India and replace with Manusmrithi. Hate and lynching incidents of beef earter are on the rise?
Every election brings with itself more poison. His own government at the centre does not seem to make any serious effort to restrain such tendencies on religious front, pushing nation behind centuries by compromising with the developmental road map from year 2014.
It is ironical that on one hand, Bhagwat talks about Hindu-Muslim unity, and at the same time, the RSS supports leaders like Yogi Adityanath, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. If Yogi is the poster boy of the RSS, Bhagwat should forget about being taken seriously by the Muslim community.
It would not be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he might be serious in his endeavor and he is seriously trying to change the theoretical boundaries of Hindutva Vs Manuwad Vs Sanathan Dharma. But for that to happen, he has to control his army, which at the moment appears unrelenting.
IWP won’t risk saying that the RSS has changed, and that it no longer follows its leader i.e. Mohan Bhagwat. This can only happen if somebody else has taken over the organisation and he is just the titular head.