The Hindu published an article on 26th September by Mr. Yogendra Yadav where he accuses RSS of being anti-national. The Hindu doesn't surprise us with its ideological bias, but the level of ignorance, or even worse, deception in this article by Yogendra Yadav is indeed surprising.
He starts by lamenting over an 'obsequious media' which only asks anticipated questions and never dwells on tougher ones. Being a veteran in academia and politics, Mr. Yadav would know that this concern is shared and more so by his opponents. We won't disappoint Mr. Yadav. In this article we will ask him a lot of tough questions, but let's first address the main contention, is RSS anti-national?
His first, and quite stale argument is that RSS wasn't active during the national movement. He goes on to argue that "Hindu Mahasabha actively opposed national movement". Mr. Yadav deliberately conflates RSS with Hindu Mahasabha in this article many times, a typical post-truth technique. Now, we can debate all these unsubstantiated claims but for a second, let's assume this is indeed true. Let's assume RSS didn't participate in national movement. But all other groups, many of them who happen to be in same ideological camp as Mr. Yadav, did? Dr. Ambedkar had on more than one occasion asked Dalits not to participate in the movement. He was a vehement critic of Gandhi, INC as well as the national movement. So, Mr. Yadav, is Dalit movement anti-national? He says, "..RSS kept aloof from Quit India movement". So did Ambedkar who asked Dalits not to participate. So did Muslims who were asked by their leaders not to participate. Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians were other two groups that remained against the national movement. Do you brand them as 'anti national' today, Mr. Yadav? If state sponsored nationalism of textbooks can make its peace with few leaders from these groups here and there who did participate, then it can certainly make its peace with RSS, whose members participated in much higher numbers.
If Mr. Yadav is distributing certificate of nationalism based on participation in national movement, I am afraid he will have to exclude a lot of groups. What is surprising, Mr. Yadav himself has said that India is a multi-national state, it is a 'state of nations' rather than a 'nation-state'. He is, therefore, willing to extend the ticket of "unity in diversity" to all other groups, but for some reason, RSS is excluded. Our state-scholars of nationalism like Bipan Chandra, try extremely hard, pick and choose from history, to include different groups who didn't explicitly subscribe to nationalist narrative pre-Independence. All of these groups, if anything, have been rewarded for their challenge to nationalist narrative. The nationalist leaders negotiated with them as equals and tried to give concessions to bring them in nationalist fold, putting more effort towards conciliation than the leaders of these groups themselves put. If we are willing to accept challenges from Marxists, Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians to mainstream nationalist thought, even celebrate it as an 'enrichment', why can't we be open-minded to criticisms and challenge of RSS? Apparently, a swayamsevak needs to meet much higher standards of nationalism to be included in the high table. B R Ambedkar was an untouchable who could be included in the ranks of nationalists, but a swayamsevak is an untouchable that can never be.
Now that it is clear that Mr. Yadav's unity in diversity ticket is available to only certain diversities, let's evaluate the real question. Where was RSS during national movement?". Several members of RSS participated and worked for the nation, just because they disagreed with Congress at the time, doesn't deprive them of their contributions of nation building. Many Congress members themselves endorsed RSS ideology and fought within Congress for freedom from British rule. To take the argument proposed by Bipan Chandra, almost all groups, wanted freedom for the foreign yolk but differed in their ideologies, techniques and strategies as well as vision of a free India. RSS was one of them. RSS had one of the competing visions of a free India, which as a nation in making, Congress leadership had to engage and work with. It is absurd to argue that RSS wanted perpetuation of British rule in India, just because it disagreed with Congress.
Next, Mr. Yadav criticizes V.D. Savarkar saying, " [he] was released from the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar island after he wrote four mercy petitions to Viceroy.." So? If writing a mercy petition to Viceroy makes you anti-national then what about the several students who participated in mass movements, were suspended from universities and after Gandhiji called off the movement, formally apologized and were readmitted? They are all anti-nationals? What about millions of government employees who left their job during the Civil disobedience movement, carried out protests, suffered jail time and lathi charges but ultimately wrote mercy petition after the movement fizzled out and were reinstated into Raj's services? What about the mercy petitions to Lord Canning by participants of 1857 sepoy mutiny who failed in their goal but continued to inspire future struggles, are they anti-national too?
Several nationalists like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozshah Mehta were all opposed to the overthrow of British rule. They were thoroughly anglicized professionals who maintained good relations with British people, participated in British formed institutions and in fact, believed in providence of British rule. Are all of these early moderates, anti-national? If conciliation with foreign ruler gives a permanent stamp of anti-nationalism, then most of our national leaders, including the two Mr. Yadav mentions in his article as the ideal case for RSS to emulate, Gandhi and Tagore, are both anti-nationals because at one point or the other, they did shake hands with British. Romesh Chandra Dutt, Gopal Krishna Ghokhle, CR Das, Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar at one point or the other were in British service or participated in British institutions. British certainly weren't paying them salaries to dismantle the Raj, so are these all anti-national?
I doubt that Mr. Yadav, being a veteran academician is as innocent to the realities of colonial rule to make a thin argument like this. People despise foreign rule but differ in their capacities to wage a struggle against it at a given point in time. Gandhi himself adopted the model of Struggle-Truce-Struggle. This truce doesn't signify an agreement with the foreign rule. It is a result of the limitations imposed by the colonial context. Early nationalists did it because a pre-emptive repression could have nipped the movement in the bud. Gandhi did it because people's capacity to suffer continuous repression is limited. If they had an option to do otherwise they would have done so. And so would have Sawarkar. He was jailed in Kala Pani, whose horror stories are well known. What right does Mr. Yadav have to judge Savarkar, or million others who did participate in the movement but caved under severe repression, who tried but failed in their immediate goal of freedom. And who is to say that the decision of Savarkar to get out of there was a strategic loss for national movement? Perhaps Mr. Yadav holds the case of Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries as ideal who died an early death brokered by British and Congress and thus made it quite convenient for the Congress to museumize them whilst getting rid of their ideals. Savarkar certainly didn't prove to be an opponent as useful but that doesn't make him anti-national, does it?
Mr. Yadav moves on to question the constitutional patriotism of RSS describing constitutional patriotism as "the heart of political life". He says that RSS does not subscribe to the key constitutional tenets of "socialism, secularism, federalism and indeed democracy". In this case, the first anti-nationals are the members of the Constituent Assembly who didn't explicitly include "socialism and secularism" in the preamble of India. These were included by Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency within the package of 42nd amendment which was notorious in its intent of subverting the basic structure of constitution. And what sense does it make to include ideological commitment to socialism as a criteria for patriotism? How many Indians identify themselves as 'socialists' today? If anything, the inclusion of word 'socialist' in the fundamental law of the land is undemocratic and reflective of a totalitarian tendency where state imposes its ideology over the people and ideological commitment becomes a test for patriotism, as happened in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.
Another thing to remember is that Constitution is an organic document. It has been amended dozens of times till now and was amended multiple times during first Lok Sabha itself. All these amendments were a product of disagreement with existing constitution. If disagreement and desire for change in Constitution make one anti-national then first Prime minister of independent India was the first anti-national.
Socialism, secularism, federalism all of these are subjective terms. There are different types of socialisms, different kinds of secular states and different kinds of federations. Apart from subjectivity in theory, the ways of implementation are also diverse. There is bound to be disagreement over these. These are processes that require regular debates and consensus building. Is India socialist? Is India secular? Is India a federal country? These are questions discussed deeply by academic colleagues of Mr. Yadav, some of whom answer it in a yes and others in a no. If mere inclusion of these terms in Constitution is enough then why so much discussion? Are all these people 'unpatriotic' to question and disagree? To hold statist interpretation of these terms as the standard and then use it as a weapon to scuttle disagreements is the mark of a fascist society, not a free society.
Mr. Yadav goes on to describe the nationalism of RSS as "a European import, out of sync with Indian nationalism". Again, Indian nationalism is a contested concept itself, as Mr. Yadav has conceded by calling India a state of nations rather than a nation-state. He goes on to say that RSS subscribes to "the now outdated European model of nation-state which assumed that the cultural boundaries of a nation must match the political boundaries of a state". He doesn't refer any document of RSS on which he bases this claim. Later in this article, we will know why. Mr. Yadav must know that the "traditional modern" model of states he calls outdated, is the commonest in the subcontinent and most prevalent in the third world. India is surrounded by nation states who have institutionalized cultural citizenship. Indic people have suffered atrocities not just in the subcontinent but throughout the world on the basis of cultural identity. Cultural nationalism isn't just a moral theoretical choice for India, but a concrete geopolitical reality which requires appropriate response. For winning some hypothetical contest of morality, we cannot and should not ignore this reality.
The recent crisis in Europe also proves the debate on multiculturalism is not 'outdated', and in fact, very much urgent. The case of Europe provides an opportunity to evaluate the multiculturalism in India in light of new insights. Multicultural societies struggle continuously to establish the correct balance between civic unity and cultural diversity, even in developed 'post modern' states like Sweden, USA and UK. Multicultural societies have inherent weaknesses which they have to guard against, especially when faced by attacks from monolithic and totalitarian cultures, who don't respect the same values of freedom and tolerance. Mr. Yadav tries to freeze and frame history of multiculturalism in India as a continuous roseate dream shattered only by the rise of 'Hindutva'. This is far from true. The interaction between Indic cultures and cultures from outside who weren't as pluralistic, didn't believe in the same values of tolerance and diversity was full of persecution and bloodshed of Indic people. Of course this chapter of history is removed from our collective consciousness as a part of the deal for an independent unified Indian nation state.
The plurality and tolerance of Indic civilization shouldn't be used as a noose around the neck of Hindus. Hindus, like any other community have a choice not to be pluralistic and tolerant towards those who don't reciprocate with same behaviour. Why the virtues of Hinduism are remembered only when it is about the duties of Hindus towards others? Why are virtues of Hinduism forgotten when a comparative study of Indic cultures and non-Indic culture comes up? Why then we find the likes of Mr. Yadav jumping to the other side in criticizing Hinduism as degenerate, superstitious and weak? If Mr. Yadav truly admires the values of Hinduism, he should ask the Muslims and Christians to learn from it. Can he do that? The trend post-Independence has been increasing communalization in India, as documented by several colleagues of Mr. Yadav. Hindus are in fact latecomers to this race. What circumstances of independent India incentivized increasing communalization? The tougher question here is, Why should Hindus be tolerant and pluralistic when they have historically suffered because of it and continue to suffer?
"RSS needs exposure to Indian culture and its multiple traditions, greater appreciation of culturally more confident Indians such as Tagore and Gandhi and a deeper understanding of Hinduism itself". Mr. Yadav moves from distributing certificate of nationalism to certificate of Indian culture and Hinduism. All of us now require approval from Mr. Yadav, a high priest of Hinduism and Hindu culture to qualify as a Hindu. Mr. Yadav has the authority to pick 'good Hindus' and 'bad Hindus' from the age-old tradition of Hinduism. Savarkar, bad Hindu. Gandhi, good Hindu. Mr. Yadav is apparently the Santa Claus of the judgment day, whose list will tell us whether we have been 'good' or 'bad'. The smugness and arrogance of this attempt is only matched by that of the colonial rulers who picked and praised Indic cultures that conformed to their own interests and sensibilities and derided others. The Bengalee was a bad Hindu, who was weak, sedentary, cowardly, effeminate and ugly. Rajputs and Sikhs were good Hindus, they were strong, courageous and of course, a fairer race than the black Bengalee. Mr. Yadav also sees RSS as a manifestation of 'inferiority complex' of Hindus, much like Colonial rulers saw the self-determination movements by Indians and Africans as their 'inferiority complex' to have been defeated by a fairer race. It seems the charge of a Eurocentrism that Mr. Yadav makes against RSS is more applicable to him.
Every culture, nation and civilization who suffered oppression and genocide has a right to get the due acknowledgement of their sufferings. An acknowledgment of the harm is the first step towards reconciliation. Such an acknowledgment isn't just a moral imperative but an absolute requirement for the oppressed community to heal and recover. This is the reason why holocaust denial is illegal in several countries around the world. This is why post-colonial states demand a recognition of ill-effects of colonial rule on international platforms like UN. The whole tradition of post-colonial scholars is dedicated to identify the political and cultural legacy of colonial rule even when explicit colonialism has ended. Similarly, the discipline of Gender studies is dedicated to identify such effects on women and Ethnic studies are dedicated to identify such effects on historically oppressed ethic groups like Native Americans and African Americans. Most of these disciplines are well established and often function as a separate department in universities, reflecting the broad consensus on the necessity of capturing past oppression in its entirety to break its legacy. If the demand for such a recognition is 'inferiority complex', then RSS should be proud to have such an inferiority complex. The insensitivity, minimization and sheer amnesia of Indian elites over the subject of Hindu holocaust is shocking. It isn't Hindus who have inferiority complex, it is the elites like Mr. Yadav who have superiority complex to pick and choose the 'victims' as they pick and choose 'good Hindus'. Hindus have a right to acknowledgment of the historical injustices they suffered, a right to resist against their continuation in different forms, and a right to heal and recover. Mr. Yadav won't be able to shame and mock Hindus into compromising with these rights.
This brings us to a very important point, that of the politics of representation.
Mr. Yadav writes, "Having met hundreds of swayamsevaks and many pracharaks, I know that..". I would like to know who exactly did Mr. Yadav meet? Did he meet somebody who has published several scholarly papers as him? Did he meet someone who frequents media channels and elite events as him? Did he meet someone whose work is taught in university classrooms as his? In short, did he have this interaction with the 'other' on equal terms or much like the history of the 'Negro' written by a colonial scholar, this was an interaction marred by huge inequality of power? It is quite surprising that to understand Maoism and even Islamic radicalism we have scores of leftist scholars in Indian academia, we don't need to interview a maoist comrade in Dandakaranya but to understand 'Hindu nationalism' and RSS we only have a poor swayamsevak and pracharak facing the elites like Mr. Yadav. Mr. Yadav lamented the lack of tough questions in our media. Here is a tough question for you, Mr. Yadav, where is right wing academia in India? All developed democracies of the world, which you and your colleagues often look up to have a well developed right wing. If there is UC Berkeley, there is also Dartmouth. If there are researchers like Naom Chomsky who are leftist, there are others like Thomas Sowell who are rightist. If the leftist interpretation forms a part of the dominant discourse, so does the rightist. A fair debate can only happen between equals, and in most of developed democracies, so is the case. The ideological capture of academia by left wing in India stands out as a sore thumb in this respect. Surprisingly, Ramchandra Guha, who certainly isn't a Bhakt, has himself conceded that there are "very few right wing intellectuals in India". How did this come to be? Are we supposed to believe that it was an innocent process whereby Left captured the academic space to almost complete annihilation of right wing? Certainly not, especially in the light of the fact that left has been thoroughly rejected by Indian masses again and again in popular elections.
The 'right wing' and the 'RSS' that the likes of Mr. Yadav criticize today are nothing more than the paper tigers they themselves set up to tear down and proclaim victory. Mr. Guha, in a recent interview with Livemint made a comment "The right essentially detests Gandhi... anyone on social media would know the Hindu right detests Gandhi". It is quite a surprise that Mr. Guha turns to much more sophisticated sources of information when it comes to the leftist view of Gandhi, he reaches out to left wing scholars, journalists etc. but as far as right wing view is considered, a statement as intense as "essentially detests" can be made on the basis of a vague comment about social media. No objectivity, no meticulous research methodology to adjust for external factors but a simple 'anyone on social media would know' is enough for an academician of the stature of Mr. Guha to establish for a fact that Hindu right detests Gandhi. If 'anyone on social media' can be an expert in right wing view of Gandhi, Mr. Guha, what is the point of your enormous volumes on Gandhi? Except for appropriation and co-optation of Gandhi into left wing propaganda.
The enormous inequality of power between right wing and left wing in India has created deep pathologies, a detailed discussion on which is beyond the scope of this article, but an example can be given related to the representation of Hindu nationalists. Roland Barthes has written a book called 'The Empire of Signs' about Japan. What comes to our mind when we think of Japan? Prof. Vinay Lal does this experiment in his class at UCLA. What comes to your mind when you think of India? Naked fakirs, snake charmers, overcrowded filthy medieval towns? What comes to our mind when it comes to Africa? Poverty, Disease, mud huts? This experiment is meant for us to evaluate the signposts we have created for different things. These signposts inform our impression and this impression mediates our sensibility of something or someone. Interestingly, these signposts aren't limited to innocent perceptions or everyday prejudices we have. These can be institutionalized and manufactured on an industrial scale, and to very dangerous consequences as we saw in Nazi Germany.
This is the right time to ask the question what comes to our mind when we think of right wing in India? Cow lynching, saffron terrorist, Godse, Babri Masjid, RSS, anti-national? This is the way discourses work, they create "truth effects", if you repeat something enough it becomes true. In a leftist dominated academia, everybody who disagrees is a fascist. It has no right to exist, at least no right to exist in the industry of knowledge production. Left has co-opted all the leaders in its big tent, highlighting one aspect of their personality and suppressing other. Gandhi, Ambedkar all are leftist and on opposite side, just me and Godse. It is funny, how all acts of brutality on the side of left and allies have a context, a story. They have complicated reasons, too complicated to place any blame and demand any accountability. A Maoist who brutally kills scores of villagers has a story. He was a poor boy. Poverty forced him to choose this path. He isn't entirely wrong, there is more to the story than just him being a cold killer. The stone-pelters in Kashmir are innocent children doing what they are doing not because of their ideological predisposition, but because of the circumstances. Recently, The Quint did a story on Osama bin Laden, "a look at the father and the husband". He wasn't just a cold-blooded terrorist who killed 3000 people. He was a father who loved his children. His laptop had Tom & Jerry videos and cat videos. He was also a good husband. He also probably was a champion of women's rights given the exemplary record towards women of Taliban, sister-organization of Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, his source of funding. All these terrorists have a story. They aren't solely responsible for what happened. Context is important. Theirs is a many sided story. Compare this with the representation of 'Hindu Nationalists'. They don't have a context. Babri Masjid, Gandhi's assassination don't have a context. These happened because of the innate criminality of those who perpetrated these crimes. These aren't people who were responding to conditions around them, they are blood-hungry sociopaths who would kill no matter what. They are not loving fathers and husbands. Their story isn't many sided. In fact, they don't have a story. They are uneducated and stupid. They hate without reason and kill with passion. These are unredeemable criminals, unless except, they do the same things for the opposite ideology.
Notice how subtly these signposts are injected into us. The industry of knowledge production and dissemination constantly screams into our ears fascists! fascists! fascists! Even in pictorial representation, any article on 'Hindu nationalism', regardless of relevance, may have a photo of several saffron clad men in angry posture, eyes bulging out, screaming. Don't they look uneducated, stupid and dangerous? These pictures create a sense of fear and urgency, "they are coming for you". On the other hand, look at the photograph, say of funeral procession of convicted terrorist Yakoob Memon, which was joined by hundreds of Muslims, the photo is taken far away from the top, no faces are visible. The center of the photograph is the dead body, signaling the centrality of the occasion of death, undermining the political angle. Look at the photographs of Azad Maidan riots, there is a deliberate attempt to hide human agency in the violence, certainly nothing comparable to the photograph of several screaming saffron clad men. The politics of knowledge also informs the production of terminologies in elite circles, 'saffron terrorists', a term associating saffron color with terrorism to paint an illusion of Hindu terrorism as religious terrorism comparable to Islamic terrorism. Indian Left probably inspired the Bangladeshi Muslim writer of Quantico to depict a Rudraksh wearing, saffron clad Hindu terrorist trying to blow up a building. Yeah right, because that happens every day. Just as the Islamic world is rocked by brutalities of radical Islamists, Indian subcontinent is rocked by mass beheadings, rape and bombings by saffron clad, rudraksh wearing Hindu terrorists screaming 'Hare Krishna'. We are indeed living in an age of post-truth, an age of, what Hannah Arendt calls the age of 'organized lying', of bullshitting. H Frankfurt explains the difference between a liar and a bullshitter. A liar deliberately tries to hide the truth but a bullshitter erases the distinction between truth and lie itself.
Notice how Mr. Yadav also furthers this post-truth politics by creating a hook between "Islamic fundamentalist groups", "Maoist insurgents" and RSS, deliberately using a catastrophising language. So every time we hear about an Islamic fundamentalist attack, automatically we believe that one such attack would be done by RSS. Every time we hear about horrible killings by Maoists, we automatically believe that RSS does so too. This is the false parity created through psychological manipulation. Doing this is pretty easy given that there is no right wing to challenge the leftist propaganda, especially when most of our scholars are scholars-cum-propagandists-cum-celebrities. In fact, many people who consider themselves right wing have bought into these stereotypes. They have allowed themselves to be defined by others and internalized these definitions. That is, after all, how hegemony works.
If RSS is indeed the right wing equivalent of "Islamic fundamentalism" and "Maoist insurgency" then it sure is doing a pretty bad job at it. Let alone these, if we compare RSS with the right wing groups of other multicultural democracies like USA, it falls severely short of the standard. RSS never makes as radical propositions as made by mainstream right wing of USA, neither are its thoughts as well represented and included with due respect in mainstream discussions in academia and the media. To use Mr. Guha's methodology, anyone on social media who follows American politics would know, RSS is not even close to mainstream right wing in USA and Europe, let alone the alt-right. RSS in its attempts to be inclusive and an agent of social change contrasts sharply with right wing conservatism of USA. The Liberals in USA can probably use the example of RSS to show Conservatives how 'left' the right can be.
This was an article about what RSS isn't. Future articles will be about what RSS is, what is anti-nationalism and how leftist hegemony has created deep pathologies. Chances are, sitting on too high a pedestal Mr. Yadav won't be able to listen to us, much less answer the questions we asked. We will have to find the answers ourselves.
Don't forget to subscribe!