New Delhi: On a rainy evening in Jawahar Bhawan, close to 50 people joined to listen to a passionate conversation on ‘the politics of Hindu Rashtra’. In the 90-minute-long conversation, a panel comprising journalists Ashutosh and Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay spoke with professor Apoorvanand on the anatomy, history and ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The event opened with a bang, as Ashutosh’s first comment captured the attention of the audience: Even the RSS has no clarity on what really is a Hindu Rashtra, he argued.
“Hindu rashtra is the most discussed and debated word, but if you ask RSS what really is a Hindu rashtra, they’ll be blank. None of the RSS literature I have reviewed has a spelt out definition of what actually is a Hindu Rashtra,” Ashutosh said. “This is both their strength and weakness,” he added.
The discussion, co-organised by publisher Westland Books, was the first of a series of discussions to be held as part of Nehru Dialogues. The journalists derived their authority on speaking on the subject from their books Hindu Rashtra by Ashutosh and The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right by Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay.
The event was described as a ‘shamiyane vaala vishwavidyalaya’ (evening school) by moderator Apoorvanand. The panel tried to have a no-holds-barred conversation critiquing the RSS’ brand of Hindutva, which many think is not easy to conduct in today’s political environment. A disclaimer was issued before the talk: the audience has to restrict itself to asking questions, not protesting the topic of the day.
College students, as well as senior citizens, gathered to listen intently as Ashutosh, rather loudly, and Mukhopadhyay, rather gently, shared wisdom collected through years of research for their books on the same topic. The discussion largely took place in Hindi.
What is a Hindu Rashtra
Where did the word ‘Hindu Rashtra’ come from? Mukhopadhyay told the audience that current sanghsarchalak Mohan Bhagwat was also asked the same question in an interview, to which he replied: “It is already a Hindu Rashtra.”
But the authors delved deep into the making of the thought of the Hindu Rashtra, starting from the forerunner of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Deen Dayal Upadhyay, who spoke of a ‘dharam rajya’ in a 1965 speech.
“He (Upadhyay) said the concept of a union of states is a threat to India’s unity and greatness. He said the Constitution of India is against India’s unity and greatness,” Ashutosh said, “Upadhyay’s idea of dharam rajya is very dangerous. He argued that a nation should be run on the principles of religion. Religion should be supreme, not Parliament or majority. It should not be sovereignty of the people but sovereignty of the religion. But he never explains what this ‘religion’ is.”
Ashutosh argued that RSS seems to be talking about the Iranian model of governance. “Will religion be a council of clerics? And will this council be supreme, will they decide if laws are working on the basis of religious dictats?” he added.
Mukhopadhyay agreed with Ashutosh and said that even Upadhyay lacked clarity on what he wanted to say about Hindu Rashtra and there’s a certain vagueness in his speeches. But Savarkar had greater clarity on the same. “Rashtra is a cultural as well as a geographical entity. In RSS literature, there’s no clarity on where culture ends and religion begins,” Mukhopadhyay added.
VD Savarkar’s definition, Mukhopadhyay said, was that the Rashtra’s culture is that of Hindu religion, and he believed that members of other religions—if they wish to stay in India—should identify themselves as Hindu, and invisiblise their own religion. Mukhopadhyay said Prime Minister Narendra Modi had told him something on the same lines in 2012.
“I had asked Modi that if he identifies himself as the CM of all Gujarati people, what does he think of the Muslims among that demographic. He said he doesn’t have any problem if someone is a Muslim or belongs to any other religion, but whoever identifies as Hindu should accept our (RSS) ideas and ideals,” Mukhopadhyay said.
Also read: Gandhi’s horoscope to Mountbatten Partition papers: Race to digitise National Archives
‘RSS can never accept Muslims’
Apoorvanand said that according to the RSS, anyone who pays respect to the saffron flag, will be considered Hindu. On this, both the panellists talked about the insulated nature of the RSS as an organisation, which is exclusively for upper-caste Hindu men.
Ashutosh said that RSS, an organisation that has been banned thrice, is sharp enough to know what to say, and how to say it. He added that it doesn’t exactly practise what it preaches. Mukhopadhyay also noted that the RSS has deliberately put up a smokescreen in what it talks about.
“RSS can never accept Muslims. I have come to this conclusion after years of research and interviews with BJP and RSS leaders. The fundamental ideology that defines the existence of RSS and Hindutva is nothing else but hatred towards Muslims,” Ashutosh said. “Even if they’ve made peace with the fact that so many Muslims cannot be kicked out of this country, they want Muslims to live in humility, fear and not participate in politics.”
His co-panelist concurred.
“Even if a Muslim goes and worships the saffron flag, he’ll not be accepted by RSS. It is an organisation exclusively for Hindu upper-caste men. RSS is an insulated organisation. For Muslim members, RSS made a separate organisation: the Muslim Rashtriya Manch, and for women, Rashtriya Sevika Samiti,” Mukhopadhyay said.
Bhagwat-Modi feud
It was under the aegis of Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, the third sanghsarchalak, that RSS started becoming interested in subsuming political power.
And this legitimacy in India’s electorate is something the RSS wants to hold on to, or they fear that globally Hindutva will face the same challenges of illegitimacy that radical Islam does, the panellists said.
Delving into the cracks in the relationship of Bhagwat and Modi, the panel argued that the difference between the two is that of approach. “RSS says Modi’s ambition is limited to the Prime Minister’s chair, their approach is furthering Hindutva, which is unifying all Hindus. Hinduism has been non-violent, peaceful and accepting of plurality, which is why, they think, it was weak and subjected to slavery. RSS wants to change it,” Ashutosh said.
While Ashutosh dismissed Modi as just another figure in the RSS’ long-standing battle to capture India’s thought process, Mukhopadhyay said nobody other than Modi could have given the BJP the kind of mandate it got in 2014 and 2019.
“BJP needed a leader who would sense India is ready for a Hindutva idea. Modi was the first one to realise this,” he said.
As for Modi and Bhagwat’s disagreement, the panelists branded it as a ‘family feud’ to be resolved amicably. The cracks won’t deepen, Mukhopadhyay adds.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)