There is something called the Lindy Effect. It states that the future longevity of an idea or technology is proportional to its survival time so far. Its relevance can be understood from how long some ideas in religion or ideology — capitalism, socialism — have survived despite the odds and obvious challenges. The Lindy Effect is named after a delicatessen in New York, where some comedians used to gather and speculate about the longevity of their shows based on how they fared in the first few weeks.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which turns 100 this year, is one demonstration of the Lindy Effect. Any organisation that can survive three political bans (in 1948, 1975, and 1992), endless demonisation at home and abroad, and the vicissitudes of social change is thus a prime exhibit. Having hit a century, the Sangh is on course to survive the next 100 years (or at least for the greater part of it) as long as it can mutate to adjust to the coming changes.
The question is: When giant organisations and corporations with billions of dollars in profits can disappear overnight, what makes the RSS such a tenacious survivor, especially when the world around it has changed dramatically?
It has survived because it is an organisation like no other — it is not corporatised, and it has no legal identity, though its front organisations do. It is built on an idea and its stated commitment is to man-making, individual character-building, and social service to the nation.
Purpose and criticism
Founded by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925 in Nagpur, its current head, or Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, is only the sixth leader of the organisation in 100 years. Thus, even while its co-travellers on the road to Hindutva have surged and shrunk (like the Hindu Mahasabha, Ram Rajya Party, and even the Jana Sangh, which dissolved itself in 1977 only to re-emerge in its second avatar as the BJP), the RSS has chosen to grow only organically. This way, its essential purpose remains undiluted.
During its 100 years, the Sangh has not only been aggressively criticised by its opponents, but by its co-ideologues too — from VD Savarkar, Sita Ram Goel to Sanjeev Kelkar (who wrote a book, Lost Years of the RSS, in 2011). Even today, the Sangh’s harshest Hindu critics on social media think of it as a namby-pamby outfit which lacks hardcore dedication toward Hindutva or protection of Hindu rights.
One reason why the RSS is easy to attack is that it has chosen, until recently, to remain opaque as an organisation. But this is changing under Bhagwat, who has not only encouraged insiders to write books about the Sangh but also engaged with civil society, including prominent Muslim intellectuals. To date, the only books written by an outsider which are worth reading are Walter K Andersen’s two tomes, The Brotherhood in Saffron (1987) and RSS: A View to the Inside (2018), both co-authored with Shridhar D Damle. There have also been several books by Ratan Sharda, an insider, which reveal a lot about the organisation and its approach to issues. An exhaustive biography of Hedgewar written by Sachin Nandha, Hedgewar: A Definitive Biography, is also very insightful.
The problem, clearly, is with its political critics, who would like to condemn it without understanding the Sangh. It is easy to say that the RSS was not a central pillar in the Congress-led nationalist movement, but then why will someone not say this about BR Ambedkar too? Organisations and leaders can have larger goals beyond just political independence. For the Sangh, it was the strengthening of Hindu society, and for Ambedkar, it was social reform. This did not make either of them anti-independence.
It is also possible to excoriate the Sangh based on the strong statements made by its charismatic second Sarsanghchalak, MS Golwalkar, who famously seemed to suggest that Muslims ought to be second-class citizens in India. But, at an interaction with the public in 2018, Bhagwat put that controversy to rest (but critics will not allow him to do so), saying it did not view Golwalkar’s thoughts on this subject as relevant anymore. The double standards of the Sangh’s critics and the mainstream media stand exposed, for we don’t apply the same logic to the Left for their views on mass murderers like Stalin or Mao.
The point is organisations change with the times, and the RSS has probably done so too. But its past comes in handy for its critics to take political potshots at it today.
Also read: In 100 yrs of RSS, even opponents lent their voices to Hindu cause: Dattatreya Hosabale
What the Sangh stands for
Based on my limited interactions with some senior RSS leaders and Ratan Sharda’s books, the following are my conclusions about the true nature of the Sangh.
One, it is not a religious organisation, but more aligned to ideas of nationalism and cultural cohesiveness.
Two, contrary to what critics may believe, it does not intervene or micromanage its front and associate organisations except when these organisations themselves seem to be in need of the Sangh’s guidance. It stepped in some years ago when the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) under Pravin Togadia seemed to be lurching toward an extreme form of Hindutva, and it may still share ideas with the BJP when required. But the ultimate decisions are those of its front organisations or associates.
Three, its approach to front organisations is not to treat them as subsidiaries, but as ideas that need nurturing, for which it often lends capable leaders and committed individuals from its own ranks. One can think of the Sangh as a kind of leadership-for-loan programme (a Hindu administrative service, if you will) because most Sangh leaders are brought up to remain selfless and humble even while being organisationally capable. Once built, the Sangh may either withdraw its leaders, or let them continue with the associate organisation if they are so inclined.
Four, the Sangh prefers doers to theorists, and has gained a reputation for anti-intellectualism over the decades. However, it now seeks to support a set of new intellectuals indirectly. It, however, remains suspicious of extreme intellectualism, or even extreme views.
Five, the Sangh is not a religious revivalist by any means, though it draws from Hindu cultural traditions. It does not celebrate very important Hindu festivals like Holi or Diwali, but Vijayadashami and Guru Purnima are big days for it. On Vijayadashami, the Sarsanghchalak delivers his annual message to cadres and the society at large; and on Guru Purnima, well-wishers donate to the Sangh to the extent they can. Despite seeking to be culturally Hindu, the Sangh has never been at the forefront of movements to free Hindu temples from state control, nor is it too keen to participate in missions to reinstate Hindu temples that were destroyed during Islamic rule. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement was the first, and possibly the last, such movement it has supported, though its members are free to do what they want as individuals on this score.
Six, barring the top leadership, most Sangh karyakartas have day jobs. They are not dependent on the organisation to support them. Rather, they support the organisation by taking on its day-to-day running costs themselves, sometimes with the help of wealthier well-wishers. It is correctly referred to as a brotherhood, for anyone who travels for a purpose often stays with fellow swayamsevaks. Anyone who needs funding for a project is referred to someone who can help.
Seven, as most people already know, the core ideological and cultural training happens in shakhas, and there are now over 80,000 of them spread all over the country. This is where the man-making and character-building happens, as new recruits are exposed to the influences, ideas, and supportive presence of shakha colleagues and organisers.
Eight, the Sangh discourages hero-worship and excess dependence on one leader, even though it appears to have made an exception for Narendra Modi, with whom the current Sangh chief shares an excellent working relationship. The Sangh probably realises that in the television and social media age, having a larger-than-life political leader is not a disadvantage, even though it would like to emphasise humility and understatement in its own leaders.
Nine, thanks to its opacity, the Sangh is often characterised as an authoritarian organisation even though the reality is different. The Sangh is internally open to ideas but emphasises that once a decision is taken, members have to be disciplined and accept it even if they personally disagree with it. Democracy with discipline is probably what the Sangh should be noted for. Its model of consensus-building should, in fact, be studied for relevance to how decisions should be arrived at in mature democracies, which are rapidly descending into chaos and extreme polarisation. The Sangh is one of the best subjects for a deep study on organisational coherence over the long term.
Ten, the top leader is usually anointed by the previous one, though the succession plan is known years in advance since capable leaders work their way up through the ranks, and are noted for their competence.
Eleven, the Sangh’s biggest challenge is not survival or growth, but how it ultimately serves as a big tent for cultural and national unity. It has to help heal caste-based and religion-based schisms. It could seek to provide a forum for dialogue and compromise. It has begun an exercise to talk to Muslim public intellectuals, but so far nothing tangible has been achieved. But this effort should be persisted with in order to stabilise social and religious relationships so that they need not threaten national unity.
Twelve, in an age when technology is rapidly making humans obsolete, the Sangh may have to reinvent itself in order to remain relevant to the new generations. On the other hand, its shakha system builds a relationship model of self-help and service orientation, ideas that can be hugely relevant in an era when communities are breaking up and individuals suffer loneliness and anomie. It may well have some ideas to make humans sociable again.
My personal takeaway: India, and Hindu society, is better off with the Sangh in the picture. It presents a unique Bharatiya model for continuity and change, diversity with unity.
The ultimate relevance of any organisation is determined by a simple question: if it did not exist, would another one like it have to be invented to meet a felt social need? In the case of the RSS, my answer would be a big yes.
Even if you are Muslim or Christian, the RSS is relevant for one simple reason: it provides a starting point for a dialogue with the wider Hindu polity, even though the Sangh does not represent all Hindus. Outside the Sangh, the Hindu society behaves more like the sum of the parts than the whole. You can’t talk to one group and assume it will resonate with the larger Hindu society.
R Jagannathan is the former editorial director, Swarajya magazine. He tweets @TheJaggi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)