scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeIndiaGovernanceIt’s RSS vs RSS over Mohan Bhagwat speech

It’s RSS vs RSS over Mohan Bhagwat speech

Follow Us :
Text Size:

RSS ideologue Rakesh Sinha disagrees with RSS pracharak and BJP general secretery Ram Madhav over ‘Glasnost & Perestroika’ in the sangh.

New Delhi: The BJP Rajya Sabha MP and RSS ideologue, Rakesh Sinha, has categorically stated that the three-day Sangh conclave, spearheaded by chief Mohan Bhagwat, was no ‘Glasnost’ for the organisation.     

His remarks come three days after BJP general secretary Ram Madhav wrote an editorial in a newspaper, equating Bhagwat’s remarks in the conclave to the reform policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, ushered in by the leader of the erstwhile Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev.

In an interview to an English newspaper, Sinha disagreed with Madhav’s assertions, and said that both terms “are inappropriate for the RSS”.

“Bhagwat has compelled critics to apply Glasnost and Perestroika to their own thought process. Tragically, some people still try to understand Indian institutions and indigenous mode of transformations from a European prism,” the paper quoted him as having said.

Sinha did not name Madhav in his remarks. He also stressed that Bhagwat had discarded the thoughts of former RSS head M.S. Golwalkar, suggesting the latter had nuanced his views in his later years.

He, however, agreed with Madhav’s view that the RSS view of Hindutva includes people from all religion. “The concept of Hindu Rashtra is not theocratic. It is an adjective of the nation, not an objective,” he said.

Sinha had been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President and joined the BJP in July.


Also read: Silence speaks louder than words: What RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat didn’t mention


RSS’s Glasnost and Perestroika

In the lecture series, ‘Future of Bharat: An RSS Perspective’, held in Delhi between 17 September and 19 September, Bhagwat appeared to project a softened version of the RSS, saying among other things, that the Sangh was inclusive and that its version of a Hindu Rashtra cannot be without Muslims.

In his column, Madhav argued that the remarks were a sign of the RSS opening up.

“It is a Glasnost moment for the Sangh. In the mid-1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev brought in new ‘openness’ in the thinking and actions of the USSR,” Madhav wrote. “He didn’t reject Communism. He insisted that there was a need for more openness and accommodation”.

Madhav also argued that having effected a Glasnost, Bhagwat should now carry out a Perestroika — restructuring.

“Driving home the new thinking within the rank and file of the organisation requires no less than a Perestroika — restructuring. Bhagwat’s challenge lies in that,” Madhav wrote.

“Bhagwat will lead the organisation for many more years to come. He commands enormous respect within the rank and file. With his clarity, candidness and determination he has the ability to lead the organisation in the direction he wants.”


Also read: Mohan Bhagwat’s idea of India is not a thali of identities but a khichdi: Shashi Tharoor


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

5 COMMENTS

  1. I would have expected better from Mr Rakesh Sinha than what his following comment suggests. I say so because I have seen him on TV debates many a time and found him patient, and fairly sound with his arguments. The following quote, which I have copied from this article does not live up to his own standards. Let us read it:

    “The concept of Hindu Rashtra is not theocratic. It is an adjective of the nation, not an objective,” he said.

    Hindu Rashtra cannot be theocratic, it is like stating the obvious, because there is no ONE God of the Hindus. In ‘Hindu’ Bharat, or ‘Hindutva’ Bharat, the first word is an adjective (of Bharat). If it is NOT the “objective”, then what has the RSS been fretting about all these years!

    Glasnost and Perestroika, the words, may have originated in Soviet Russia but have become a part of English dictionary because, I would venture to guess, many people around the world have found them attractive to use. The world is becoming small, people are becoming accommodative. Why should a Hindu organization not use these words? It would be an unfortunate dichotomy if they don’t — on the one hand they raise the slogan of “Vasudha-eiv-Kutumbkam”, and on the other they behave like “Black Holes” out of which not even light (in this case, sound) can escape!

    There will be many observers who will welcome Ram Madhav’s usage of these words, after of course having welcomed Mohan Bhagwat’s path breaking pronouncements. If Mr Sinha takes a different line then some other observers and bystanders like me will say that their scepticism was justified — that, the RSS is putting on a ruse of being friendly towards the Muslims and the secular constitution of India only in view of the forthcoming elections.

  2. The title of Idealogue is the creation of the media. In the RSS, there is space only for Pracharak, not vicharak. Therefore, it is wrong to call Prof, Rakesh Sinha or anybody other from the RSS ranks to call Vicharak (ideologue).

  3. The three day conclave did immense good to the image of the RSS, especially amongst Indians who do not identify with its traditional ideology. It signalled a continuing openness to change, transformation, a willingness to engage with political adversaries, most significantly an outreach to the Muslim community. In purely political terms, it positions the organisation well to deal with the need to create and sustain coalitions. Its impact will be magnified by how events unfold on the ground. We are at the third anniversary of Mohammed Ahlaq’s brutal killing, with the trial stuck in a fast track court. The incident from Meerut, involving an inter faith couple, another of a professor touching the feet of rowdy students, these undermine and discount the gentler, more inclusive face many would like to see reflected on the ground.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular